From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:45:19 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Redundant environment expected behavior vs current In-Reply-To: <200604262226.44503.sr@denx.de> References: <20060426075331.C04C8353AC4@atlas.denx.de> <200604262226.44503.sr@denx.de> Message-ID: <4451113F.4030405@smiths-aerospace.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Stefan Roese wrote: > On Wednesday, 26. April 2006 09:53, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>> I will have to add the code associated with this option into >>> common/env_flash.c. If CFG_ENV_REDUND_SYNC is not defined no new code is >> You can keep this as local extensions / patches. I don't think I'm >> going to add this, unless at least some other people speak up here on >> the list and say that they need this, too. > > I have to admit, that I was also a little astonished how the redundant > environment works when I first used it. I would have expected (as Tolunay > did) the 2nd totally synced version. > > I do see the benefit that the current implementation only erases the flash > sectors half as much as normal (not redundant) flash environment or totally > synced redundant environment does. But is this really a problem? Then all not > redundant flash environment U-Boot implementations would have a problem too. > > I also tend to forget such things like using "saveenv" twice, so I would vote > to let Tolunay implement this new behavior (using CFG_ENV_REDUND_SYNC) that > the user (or developer) can choose between both versions. > > And if Wolfgang agrees to accept this patch then please include a short > description on both implementations in the README. That would be very > helpful. > > Best regards, > Stefan My 2 cents: ----------- 1c: What u-boot currently has I would label a "back up" env, not a "redundant" env. The analogy would be a back up tape's copy of your hard drive vs. a RAID-1's redundant copy. Both copy mechanisms are useful, but in different ways. 2c: I've been working with "full featured" and flash EEPROMs for 20 years and have not seen any lose their contents after being successfully programmed (and properly programmed - losing power during a program cycle is a Bad Thing[tm] DAMHIK :-/). OTOH, I am in development and may have missed Manufacturing's warranty repair bulletins :-/. gvb