From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tolunay Orkun <listmember@orkun.us>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 17:55:43 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: Redundant environment
In-Reply-To: <200605010819.26596.sr@denx.de>
References: <20060428193144.30DD7353A20@atlas.denx.de> <200605010819.26596.sr@denx.de>
Message-ID: <445691EF.1000401@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

Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> On Friday, 28. April 2006 21:31, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>   
>>> Of course, I will also document both behavior in README properly,
>>> introduce the same functionality in env_flash.c, env_nand.c etc. (i.e.
>>> all mediums that redundant environment is implemented) and fixup
>>> fw_setenv/fw_getenv utility.
>>>       
>> You mean, you want to change more than the  saveenc  command  to  run
>> twice? Is this really needed?
>>     
>
> As I mentioned before, I also tend to forget to use special commands like 2 
> times "saveenv". So I still vote to include Tolunay's patch.
>
> Or do you mean that you would like to see this new behavior implemented in a 
> patched saveenv command, that calls the original _saveenv twice? This would 
> have the advantage of less code changes, but the disadvantage of doing 
> everything twice (like unprotect, protect).
>
> Best regards,
> Stefan
>   
Yes, I can do it in saveenv code to cycle twice but I would rather avoid 
doing unlock/re-lock/over flag byte stuff twice.

Whichever way Wolfgang favors I am ready to work on a patch.

Best regards,
Tolunay