On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 08:00 -0800, Pete Popov wrote:
> > Just a comment (forgot to post this last time around):
> > At least one of the chips we're using - identified as
> > "NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0x76 (Samsung NAND 64MiB 3,3V 8-bit)"
> > seems to also need the CS manually asserted during a READID operation.
> > 
> > This made the if-statements ridicilously long, so I added a case
> > statement and a variable keeping track of wether or not to force-enable
> > CS to the au1550_command function.
> > 
> > If there is any interest, I could post a patch, but am unsure of the
> > correct way. Should I send a new patch against cvs HEAD containing my
> > trivial tweak as well as Sergeis modifications, or...?
> 
> Send an incremental patch on top of Sergey's patch if you can.

Attached is an incremental patch on top of Sergeys latest patch
(yesterday). Is that's ok, or should I do the same for the old one?

/
	Leif