From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tolunay Orkun <listmember@orkun.us>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:02:48 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches
In-Reply-To: <20050822075807.4D5D0352B0C@atlas.denx.de>
References: <20050822075807.4D5D0352B0C@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <430A0538.2040908@orkun.us>
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

Wolfgang Denk wrote:

>In message <4309712D.1040301@orkun.us> you wrote:
>  
>
>>Convenience is irrelevant. This flash is obviously designed with data
>>protection as priority.
>>    
>>
>
>Convenience is not irrelevant. The existence of U-Boot itself is just
>for convenience,
>  
>
I think "protect off" command is the convenience enough for this situation.

>We don't care what the people who designed the flash had in mind.  In
>U-Boot, the design is as follows:
>
>* All flash is writable by default.
>  
>
Why do you even attempt to provide software protection  for some sectors 
of flash when the chip does not provide such protection then?

>* Some parts of the flash may be  either  implictely  or  explicitely
>  protected.
>
>* Implicit protection: this covers those areas of the flash that  are
>  used  to  store  data  that  are  required for correct operation of
>  U-Boot and the hardware, i. e.
>
>  - the U-Boot code and data
>  - environment variables
>  - any FPGA images etc. which are necessary for correct HW operation
>  
>

Why do you override the policy of other applications for sectors that 
U-Boot has no actual use itself. Why do you unlock them all and present 
the opportunity of loss of critical data for other parts of the software 
solution? I would argue that there may be important and critical data 
stored in those sectors that are "required for correct operation of 
software" that runs on the CPU after U-Boot is done. Why do you think 
these parts deserve lesser protection?

Best regards,
Tolunay