On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:04:33PM +0800, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:04:33PM +0800, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:04:33PM +0800, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > +#define
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:04:33PM +0800, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
+#define RDID(...)
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
> > >
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
> > > extension. However, devices are now emerging
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:02:04PM +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension. However, devices are now emerging that return
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
> > extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
> > READID data and the additional
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
READID data and the additional bytes are
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
> The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
> extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
> READID data and the additional bytes are required to differentiate between
>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:59:15AM +, Lee Jones wrote:
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
READID data and the additional bytes are required to differentiate between
variants or
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
READID data and the additional bytes are required to differentiate between
variants or generations of similar devices.
This patch refactors the
The previous code was based on 3-byte JEDEC IDs, with a possible 2-byte
extension. However, devices are now emerging that return 6 or more bytes of
READID data and the additional bytes are required to differentiate between
variants or generations of similar devices.
This patch refactors the
14 matches
Mail list logo