On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de
Cc: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jaga...@xilinx.com
---
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
they have four times less sectors than their _64K counterparts.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
compared to their _64K counterparts, which have 64kB sectors. Also,
they have four times less
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 04:17:55 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Marek Vasut ma...@denx.de wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 03:29:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Both of these chips have 256kB big sectors, thus the _256K suffix,
compared to their _64K
5 matches
Mail list logo
