From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Flash environment vs EEPROM environment
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:06:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41FFD322.4030401@smiths-aerospace.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050201184555.1463BC108D@atlas.denx.de>
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Thomas,
>
> in message <D9F0B2AD4531B0449D51C1F09199D484050E72@mail.kom-saarbruecken.com> you wrote:
>
>>Yes, I know that this has been discussed recently and the recommendation
>>is to store the environment in flash, but:
>
> Indeed.
[snip]
>>- Are there conditions known to cause similar effects with flash chips
>>as described for EEPROM devices? Could power loss or similar conditions
>
>
> No.
>
>
>>when writing environment sectors cause a flash device to destroy other
>>sectors than the just written one?
>
>
> In theory yes. You could assume a system without power monitoring
> where the power is failing slowly so that at some point during the
> brownout the CPU migth start executing bogus insructions, or that
> some bus driver corrupts the addresses or data, or... In theory
> anything can happen.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
Flash corruption is more than in theory: proper hardware design is to
have a power fail warning sufficient to allow a flash write cycle to
complete before power completely fails and your software should not
write to the flash when the power fail warning is active.
If you do a lot of flash erase/writing and glitch the power rapidly and
repeatedly during the flash activity, you _will_ have corrupted flash at
_unpredictable_ (i.e. not necessarily the block you were intending to
write/erase) locations. Guaranteed. Want to see the scars :-)?
Fortunately, most people (a) don't write rapidly and repeatedly to
flash, (b) have stable power supplies that don't glitch rapidly and
repeatedly (large output filter capacitors and power supervisory chips
are your friends!) and (c) flash operations are relatively fast making
the window of vulnerability very short.
Thus people get away with not using a power fail warning because the
probability of corruption is extremely small, not necessarily by design
but rather by happy coincidence.
gvb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-01 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-01 17:10 [U-Boot-Users] Flash environment vs EEPROM environment Thomas Schäfer
2005-02-01 18:45 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-02-01 19:06 ` Jerry Van Baren [this message]
2005-02-01 21:28 ` Roger Larsson
2005-02-01 22:13 ` Jerry Van Baren
2005-02-01 22:15 ` Wolfgang Denk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-02-01 18:19 Rune Torgersen
2005-02-02 9:54 Thomas Schäfer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41FFD322.4030401@smiths-aerospace.com \
--to=gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.