From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:29:20 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Redundant environment expected behavior vs current In-Reply-To: <20060426150545.C82D6353DAC@atlas.denx.de> References: <20060426150545.C82D6353DAC@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <444F91D0.9080904@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de I will drop in this post to put some final remarks... Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <444F74B1.8060909@imagemap.com> you wrote: >> Just my uninformed opinion...It seems to me that calling saveenv twice >> is misleading. What I mean is that I assume that I have a "golden" copy >> of my environment in the redundant area. I should be able to call > > No. That "golden" copy is what we call "default environment" - you > get this when you lose your environment (with redundand environment > it means that you lose both copies). Yet, the default environment normally does not contain such important stuff like ethaddr which is assigned per board. > >> saveenv as many times as I wish without touching the contents of the >> "golden" copy and that there should be another mechanism to update the >> "golden" copy. I had no idea that calling saveenv twice will overwrite > > That's not how redundance is defined. You are looking for a backup > copy, which is provided by the default environment. Indeed redundancy of environment in U-Boot is rather different than I am accustomed to. Anyway, at least I understand how this stuff works much better now and I hope this discussion will probably help other developers understand that what they might be getting with redundant environment right now might not be exactly what they think they are getting. I really hoped you would allow to introduce the choice of functionality. It would break no existing boards. I have to think about maintaining an out-of-three patch for this case :( Best regards, Tolunay