On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > On Wednesday 23 December 2009, Řyvind Harboe wrote: >> I do think it might be useful to print actual address >> ranges erased in some reasonably terse and non >> warning format. > > If it's going to be erasing data beyond what it was told > to erase, we deserve at the very least a warning. > > That's pretty basic: don't destroy user data. And if > you must, at least warn that something may now be broken.
I think a note of actual address ranges erased could be good, but what flash erase_address does is to identify *all* sectors in that range and erase those sectors. So if you wanted some other functionality, then this command wasn't for you. > What we have right now is some upper layer calls (at > least "write_image") that are trying to rely on a lower > level interface that was dangerously broken ... when it > should just be telling those lower level calls exactly > what to do. The flash erase address is doing precisely what it is told to: erase all sectors in that address range. If that isn't what you wanted, then use another function. By making it do something else, the contract to the upper levels is broken. "flash write_image erase" will erase *all* sectors in the address ranges of the image and then write the image to flash. If this isn't clear from the documentation, then we should make it clear. -- Øyvind Harboe US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00 http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
