David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 19 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> Does anyone feel very strongly about flash protection? >> > > Dunno about "strongly", but given my druthers it'd stay > the way it is now. I've not observed it to be a problem. > It is if you use Intel flashs that come up with every sector protected after every reset. >> >> IMHO, the flash protection is there to stop the application, when running >> normally, from accidentally erasing the flash. >> > > It's also there to help avoid boneheaded user errors. > Of what kind? If I use the wrong sector number or address to erase, forcing me to unlock manually won't help - I will use the same (wrong) sector number to unlock and then repeat the erase.
> And to allow things like "erase the whole flash" to > preserve the boot loader (etc) unless something > explicitly enables erasing it... > No. If I call for a complete chip erase, I want a complete chip erase, not something that preserves part of the flash. Either refuse the operation, or perform it as I requested. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
