From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott McNutt Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:41:21 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches In-Reply-To: <4309F122.5090907@orkun.us> References: <00b301c5a476$5c707fe0$212d4cdc@smkim> <430626AE.9030607@orkun.us> <002c01c5a6db$8a115ed0$212d4cdc@smkim> <4309712D.1040301@orkun.us> <001201c5a6e8$fbfe7cf0$212d4cdc@smkim> <4309F122.5090907@orkun.us> Message-ID: <430A0031.9070304@psyent.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Tolunay Orkun wrote: > The point is you can simply use already available "protect off" Not to add fuel to the fire ;-) ... but in the past, I did precisely what Tolunay suggests. I just added a "protect off" to the boot command to explicitly unprotect specific sectors. It worked just fine -- and I did not consider the techique to lack convenience. On-the-other-hand, preventing automatic "UN-protection" in this case is _policy_ enforcement -- we would be making technical decisions for others, for applications we know nothing about -- this, I am sure, is not the u-boot "spirit" that I have observed over the past 5 years. That being said, a default that does not automatically un-protect seems appropriate -- or find a way to push the auto un-protect capability into the board-specific tree. Regards, --Scott