From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 11:45:33 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: Redundant environment In-Reply-To: <445B8086.9000404@orkun.us> References: <20060501231345.89B643525C5@atlas.denx.de> <445B8086.9000404@orkun.us> Message-ID: <445B812D.2040807@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 Tolunay Orkun wrote: > >> I am aware that some people interpreted the term "redundand environ- >> ment" that two identical copies of the environment were stored. This >> was obviously an unlucky choice of the name for this feature. Please >> let's exclude this "I expected to see this, now change the code to >> match my expectations" aspect for a moment. However, I still fail to >> see any improvements in the suggested change; actually I only see >> disadvantages like doubling the number of flash erase cycles for the >> environment sectors. >> > I understand you concern. In our application the environment would not > be updated occasionally so that is not a big concern for us. I meant to say the environment would be updated occasionally but somehow inverted the meaning. Best regards, Tolunay