[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches
Tolunay Orkun
listmember at orkun.us
Mon Aug 22 19:02:48 CEST 2005
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>In message <4309712D.1040301 at orkun.us> you wrote:
>
>
>>Convenience is irrelevant. This flash is obviously designed with data
>>protection as priority.
>>
>>
>
>Convenience is not irrelevant. The existence of U-Boot itself is just
>for convenience,
>
>
I think "protect off" command is the convenience enough for this situation.
>We don't care what the people who designed the flash had in mind. In
>U-Boot, the design is as follows:
>
>* All flash is writable by default.
>
>
Why do you even attempt to provide software protection for some sectors
of flash when the chip does not provide such protection then?
>* Some parts of the flash may be either implictely or explicitely
> protected.
>
>* Implicit protection: this covers those areas of the flash that are
> used to store data that are required for correct operation of
> U-Boot and the hardware, i. e.
>
> - the U-Boot code and data
> - environment variables
> - any FPGA images etc. which are necessary for correct HW operation
>
>
Why do you override the policy of other applications for sectors that
U-Boot has no actual use itself. Why do you unlock them all and present
the opportunity of loss of critical data for other parts of the software
solution? I would argue that there may be important and critical data
stored in those sectors that are "required for correct operation of
software" that runs on the CPU after U-Boot is done. Why do you think
these parts deserve lesser protection?
Best regards,
Tolunay
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list