From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 08:19:26 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: Redundant environment
In-Reply-To: <20060428193144.30DD7353A20@atlas.denx.de>
References: <20060428193144.30DD7353A20@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <200605010819.26596.sr@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Wolfgang,

On Friday, 28. April 2006 21:31, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Of course, I will also document both behavior in README properly,
> > introduce the same functionality in env_flash.c, env_nand.c etc. (i.e.
> > all mediums that redundant environment is implemented) and fixup
> > fw_setenv/fw_getenv utility.
>
> You mean, you want to change more than the  saveenc  command  to  run
> twice? Is this really needed?

As I mentioned before, I also tend to forget to use special commands like 2 
times "saveenv". So I still vote to include Tolunay's patch.

Or do you mean that you would like to see this new behavior implemented in a 
patched saveenv command, that calls the original _saveenv twice? This would 
have the advantage of less code changes, but the disadvantage of doing 
everything twice (like unprotect, protect).

Best regards,
Stefan