From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Waite Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:37:28 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches In-Reply-To: <20050824231225.C1705352674@atlas.denx.de> References: <20050824231225.C1705352674@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <200508251037.29161.bwaite@irobot.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wednesday 24 August 2005 7:12 pm, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tolunay, > > in message <430CEC01.1070800@orkun.us> you wrote: > > > I think Wolfgang votes against this as he expects u-boot to provide > > > him with a common view over many boards - thus seeing the hardware > > > protection by default rather as a design decision to be abstracted by > > > u-boot. > > > > But, he is making an assumption on the usage of portions of flash which > > is not defined by U-Boot. > > I am not. As I wrote before I am aware that specific requirements may > exist, and that these shallbe handled where they belong to: in the > board specific sections of the code. > Ok I surrender the point that common code shall unprotect all FLASH at boot. Can I ask you to consider a method of allowing the board maintainers to easily override this feature, either through a conditional compile or through a function pointer to be overridden by the board maintainer if desired? Here is my issue, I have been porting ppcboot and u-boot to boards for nearly 4 years now. In all this time I have happend to have used Inelstrata FLASH with hardware protection, the protection was deigned into the product. That said, to forward port these boards to newer version of u-boot I will have to either patch common code, or copy cfi_flash.c to my board directoy remove the unprotect in flash_init() and maintain the copy on common code in each board set. This does not seem to make for the most modular design of u-boot. Can we have a hook such as initflash() that will by default call the common flash_init() if not overridden by the board. At least then I only have to maintain a copy of a single function.