Hello: On Wednesday 20 May 2009 06:36:41 Rick Altherr wrote: > From my cursory reading, everything looks fine and straightforward. > Since you marked this as an RFC, I'll hold off committing until it is > resent to the list. > > Rick
Thank you very much for your review, Rick. I asked for comments because I would prefer applying a cleaner patch. I would like to know if we can merge flash_address and command_address functionality, but in order to tackle this, I'd like to know if command_address would also be useful in the intel case. Another approach would be applying the patchset as I've send it temporarily while working on the above point. If you prefer this, let me know if you prefer a monolithic patch or will you apply each of them (preferred for me). I'm all ears ;) Regards > > On May 19, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Raúl Sánchez Siles wrote: > > Hello: > > > > This is my first try to implement the x16_as_x8 flash bank option. > > It is > > working for me as I would expect flash to work, but please consider > > this > > patchset as work in progress since it may still has some flaws. > > > > Al patches touch just src/flash/cfi.c file and should apply in this > > order to > > trunk. > > > > The patchset consists of 4 patches, whose interest areas I > > explain and comment below: > > [...] > > > > -- > > Raúl Sánchez Siles -- Raúl Sánchez Siles Departamento de Montaje INFOGLOBAL, S. A. * C/ Virgilio, 2. Ciudad de la Imagen. 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), España * T: +34 91 506 40 00 * F: +34 91 506 40 01 _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
