From: Tolunay Orkun <listmember@orkun.us>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:37:06 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4309F122.5090907@orkun.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001201c5a6e8$fbfe7cf0$212d4cdc@smkim>
Sangmoon Kim wrote:
>>> I don't think it is convenient to protect off sectors manually
>>> which is automatically protected during power on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Convenience is irrelevant. This flash is obviously designed with data
>> protection as priority.
>
>
> The point is that all the sectors of the flash is protected
> "automatically" on power up.
> And for the flash which is not,
> you can simply undefine CFG_FLASH_PROTECT_CLEAR.
>
> Regards,
> Sangmoon Kim
The point is you can simply use already available "protect off"
mechanism to lift the lock on these sectors instead of defining
something new. Existing CFG_FLASH_PROTECTION properly directs U-Boot to
issue unlock commands when you execute "protect off".
You are not solving a problem with CFG_FLASH_PROTECT_CLEAR. You are
introducing another solution which is not needed. Given that you cannot
distinguish between sectors that should be unlocked and that should
remain locked, unlocking lifts lock on sectors that should remain locked
as well. You might as well used a flash without any locking at all.
Wolfgang, as project leader, might take your patch but I am personally
irked with the spirit of this patch and the implications. Yes, it will
be optionally included by default but ugliness of the solution you
present does not go away. IMHO, There should be no code in real life
that simply unlocks all sectors. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Best regards,
Tolunay
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-22 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-19 4:27 [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches Sangmoon Kim
2005-08-19 18:36 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-22 5:37 ` Sangmoon Kim
2005-08-22 6:31 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-22 7:13 ` Sangmoon Kim
2005-08-22 15:37 ` Tolunay Orkun [this message]
2005-08-22 16:17 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-22 16:49 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-22 20:49 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-22 16:41 ` Scott McNutt
2005-08-23 1:53 ` Sangmoon Kim
2005-08-22 7:58 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-22 17:02 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-22 20:53 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-22 22:05 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-22 22:46 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-23 7:14 ` Yuli Barcohen
2005-08-23 8:39 ` Sangmoon Kim
2005-08-23 14:47 ` Brian Waite
2005-08-23 20:24 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-24 5:58 ` Yuli Barcohen
2005-08-24 16:00 ` Detlev Zundel
2005-08-24 21:52 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-24 23:12 ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-08-25 14:37 ` Brian Waite
2005-08-25 16:37 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-26 14:12 ` U-Boot policy on flash protection (was [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches) Detlev Zundel
2005-08-26 14:45 ` Wolfgang Denk
2006-02-28 16:34 ` [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches Wolfgang Denk
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-19 18:47 Woodruff, Richard
2005-08-19 20:16 ` Tolunay Orkun
2005-08-19 20:22 Woodruff, Richard
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=4309F122.5090907@orkun.us \
--to=listmember@orkun.us \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox