[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Tolunay,

in message <430CEC01.1070800 at orkun.us> you wrote:
> 
> > I think Wolfgang votes against this as he expects u-boot to provide
> > him with a common view over many boards - thus seeing the hardware
> > protection by default rather as a design decision to be abstracted by
> > u-boot.
> 
> But, he is making an assumption on the usage of portions of flash which 
> is not defined by U-Boot.

I am not. As I wrote before I am aware that specific requirements may
exist, and that these shallbe handled where they belong  to:  in  the
board specific sections of the code.

> When the answer is "Yes", the designer really desires to use that 
> feature as presented by the hardware.

And then such board specific design shall  be  dealt  with  in  board
specific code.

> So, should U-Boot be making the abstraction suitable for this lowest 
> common denomiator, denying the capabilities of more featured chips? I 

Yes, as the default case. But giving you each  and  every  option  to
handle things as you like in your board specific code.

> I think it is wrong for U-Boot to make any abstraction on any portion of 
> flash that it does not know anything about it's use. The tools available 
> today within U-Boot provides all the necessary and sufficient facilities 
> to deal with any usage model.

Right. The discussion is just what the  default  configuration  shall
look like, and I get tired of pointing this out again and again.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
Why can you only have two doors on a chicken coop? If it had four  it
would be a chicken sedan.