[U-Boot-Users] Re: Redundant environment
wd at denx.de
Tue May 2 01:13:45 CEST 2006
in message <445691EF.1000401 at orkun.us> you wrote:
> Yes, I can do it in saveenv code to cycle twice but I would rather avoid
> doing unlock/re-lock/over flag byte stuff twice.
> Whichever way Wolfgang favors I am ready to work on a patch.
I think adding another set of N #ifdef's to implement this feature is
not a good idea, when a single one (to duplicate the call to the C
function) does basicly the same.
Ummm... sorry for being stubborn, but before you start can you please
re-try to explain to me in which specific situations you expect this
patch to actually improve the reliability of operation of the device?
I am aware that some people interpreted the term "redundand environ-
ment" that two identical copies of the environment were stored. This
was obviously an unlucky choice of the name for this feature. Please
let's exclude this "I expected to see this, now change the code to
match my expectations" aspect for a moment. However, I still fail to
see any improvements in the suggested change; actually I only see
disadvantages like doubling the number of flash erase cycles for the
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
core error - bus dumped
More information about the U-Boot