On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 02:11:27PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > On 23.09.2009 13:44, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Can we not consider E as tested here? I believe you got ulf to test > > both, and with the board enable, even the 64k block erase succeeded. > > > > Well, I didn't have him test the erase functions inside the new > eraseblock framework, I only used the old framework. The effect (comands > executed) should be identical, though. If you think that is good enough, > I'll resend without the PRW change for this chip, but with the added > definition of PRW (I need that one for a boatload of other eraseblock > changes).
Ok, with just that one change: Acked-by: Luc Verhaegen <[email protected]> Also, we might want to have Ulf test this if you are still not entirely sure about this code. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
