[U-Boot-Users] Re: Redundant environment

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Tolunay,

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
environment sectors.

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
core error - bus dumped