From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Numonyx NOR and chip->mutex bug? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Michael Cashwell In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:59:50 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85661EDC-9882-41B1-A926-0A88EF1CEF2E@prograde.net> References: <16826B66-31FE-41AD-A6EF-E668A45AF1FE@prograde.net> <4D4BDD48.6040600@keymile.com> <541E19B8-D428-4F59-B6BB-A3BD8F455AE4@prograde.net> <0488D3BA-7BA3-4E98-B289-3F3D1DB485D4@prograde.net> To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Holger brunck , stefan.bigler@keymile.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Anders_Grafstr=F6m?= List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > A simpler impl. would be a suspend counter. When no. of suspends > = 1000, do usleep(500) or usleep(500) every 100-500 suspends. Our messages crossed each other. I just saw this problem with 29 = suspends. I wonder if THAT is what's different between these chips and the older = 130nm parts. And none of that addresses whether or not this change is = just an anomaly in this batch or if we would continue to get them. I'm going to run my test on the older 130nm (2003 vintage) parts just = for grins. -Mike