From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:07:11 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Update OMAP242x for git head (plus sign). In-Reply-To: <20050929211701.604B6353AB4@atlas.denx.de> References: <20050929211701.604B6353AB4@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <433C658F.8010209@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>Unlocking all sectors on these parts would change the current behavior >>of the boards unless either the environment variable is defined or board >>config file is also updated. > > > Yes. From my point of view this means fixing these boards :-) OK >>Also, Instead of all black or white, why don't we have unlock regions >>for partial unlocking sections of flash like like jffs2 partitions? E.g. > > > That would be even more confusing for most users. > > Sorry, I can perfectly understand your intentions from a developers > point of view. But guess how many users there are for each of us > developers? They outnumber us many, many times. And even if there was > perfect documentation for each of the ports - guess how many users > would not read it? Providing the same look and feel across all > implementations is an important issue for me. And I see it as a part > of my task as a maintainer to keep the design simple and predictable. > > KISS. OK. Probably an on/off knob for user is enough. I think board designer needs a bit more help in setting a policy for his/her board. Would you consider something like CFG_FLASH_PROTECT_LIST in board config file which defines an array of blocks that needs to be kept protected? This would be a list similar to CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST. This would take care of important sections of flash (beyond u-boot and environment) that needs to be protected for that particular board. Best regards, Tolunay