On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 09:42:04AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-04-10 12:53, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2011-04-10 10:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-04-03 22:16, Jordan Justen wrote:
> >>> When checking pfl->rom_mode for when to lazily reenter ROMD mode,
> >>> the value was check was the op
On 2011-04-10 12:53, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-04-10 10:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-04-03 22:16, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>> When checking pfl->rom_mode for when to lazily reenter ROMD mode,
>>> the value was check was the opposite of what it should have been.
>>> This prevent the part from ret
On 2011-04-10 21:33, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:53, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Commit 5145b3d1cc revealed a bug in the lazy ROMD switch-back logic, but
>> resolved it by breaking that feature. This approach addresses the issue
>> by switching back to ROMD after a certain amount of
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 03:53, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Commit 5145b3d1cc revealed a bug in the lazy ROMD switch-back logic, but
> resolved it by breaking that feature. This approach addresses the issue
> by switching back to ROMD after a certain amount of read accesses
> without further unlock sequenc
On 2011-04-10 10:38, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-04-03 22:16, Jordan Justen wrote:
>> When checking pfl->rom_mode for when to lazily reenter ROMD mode,
>> the value was check was the opposite of what it should have been.
>> This prevent the part from returning to ROMD mode after a write
>> was made
