Øyvind Harboe ha scritto: > >> Unlocking flash is good. > > Thanks. I'll hold out a bit longer for any objections.
I've been thinking about it in the past few days and I concluded that if the protection is there, ignoring it would destroy its purpose, which is protect from accidentally erasures. Imagine if old floppy drives ignored protection... I think you made such proposal for user friendliness: a user grabs Openocd, flashes and the firmware is executed. However there are some CPU which contain a bootloader on ROM which, in the designer's mind, should be used to flash the CPU through usb. If you just flash the firmware without disabling such feature, you'll never see your program running. Can't you just encode un-protect knowledge into the cpu specific config file, in a function called unprotect() which can be called on request? -- Luca Ottaviano <lottavi...@develer.com> BeRTOS developer -> http://dev.bertos.org _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
