[U-Boot-Users] Redundant environment expected behavior vs current

Stefan Roese sr at denx.de
Wed Apr 26 22:26:44 CEST 2006

On Wednesday, 26. April 2006 09:53, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > I will have to add the code associated with this option into
> > common/env_flash.c. If CFG_ENV_REDUND_SYNC is not defined no new code is
> You can keep this as local extensions / patches. I  don't  think  I'm
> going to add this, unless at least some other people speak up here on
> the list and say that they need this, too.

I have to admit, that I was also a little astonished how the redundant 
environment works when I first used it. I would have expected (as Tolunay 
did) the 2nd totally synced version.

I do see the benefit that the current implementation only erases the flash 
sectors half as much as normal (not redundant) flash environment or totally 
synced redundant environment does. But is this really a problem? Then all not 
redundant flash environment U-Boot implementations would have a problem too.

I also tend to forget such things like using "saveenv" twice, so I would vote 
to let Tolunay implement this new behavior (using CFG_ENV_REDUND_SYNC) that 
the user (or developer) can choose between both versions.

And if Wolfgang agrees to accept this patch then please include a short 
description on both implementations in the README. That would be very 

Best regards,

More information about the U-Boot mailing list