Re: tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?)

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:58:45 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does > > > it look approximately right? > > > > Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below), > > otherwise it looks good.

Re: tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?)

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:58:45 +0200 Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does > > > it look approximately right? > > > > Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below), > > otherwise it looks good. > > I'm

tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?)

Hi! > > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does > > it look approximately right? > > Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below), > otherwise it looks good. I'm copying from tango_nand, therefore I had to check tango_nand, too. static int

tango_nand: is logic right in error cases? (was Re: fsl_ifc_nand: are blank pages protected by ECC?)

Hi! > > Maybe I figured it out. Unfortunately, it is only compile tested. Does > > it look approximately right? > > Yep that's definitely better. Just one thing missing (see below), > otherwise it looks good. I'm copying from tango_nand, therefore I had to check tango_nand, too. static int