On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Luca Ottaviano wrote:
> 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
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 erasure
On Monday 19 October 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> > 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
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 t
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:10 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 19 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> There is an autoerase option to flash write_image.
>>
>> Would you object strongly to autoerase automatically
>> unlocking the flash if necessary?
>
> That sounds more like "autounlock". I'
On Monday 19 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> There is an autoerase option to flash write_image.
>
> Would you object strongly to autoerase automatically
> unlocking the flash if necessary?
That sounds more like "autounlock". I'd not object
to a new "autounlock" option, defaulting to disable
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> There is an autoerase option to flash write_image.
>>
>> Would you object strongly to autoerase automatically
>> unlocking the flash if necessary?
>>
>>
>>
>
> On some targets the write with autoerase is very slow.
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> There is an autoerase option to flash write_image.
>
> Would you object strongly to autoerase automatically
> unlocking the flash if necessary?
>
>
>
On some targets the write with autoerase is very slow. A sector erase or
full erase followed by write is much faster.
IM
There is an autoerase option to flash write_image.
Would you object strongly to autoerase automatically
unlocking the flash if necessary?
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
__
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.
> My thinking is that OpenOCD erase should remove flash protection
> automati
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Luca Ottaviano wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe ha scritto:
>>
>> Does anyone feel very strongly about flash protection?
>>
>> My thinking is that OpenOCD erase should remove flash protection
>> automatically.
>
> That's a good idea.
>
> Bear in mind, though, that some CPUs
Øyvind Harboe ha scritto:
> Does anyone feel very strongly about flash protection?
>
> My thinking is that OpenOCD erase should remove flash protection
> automatically.
That's a good idea.
Bear in mind, though, that some CPUs are bugged (eg. Atmel AT91SAM7) so
you can set protection bits only f
Does anyone feel very strongly about flash protection?
My thinking is that OpenOCD erase should remove flash protection
automatically.
IMHO, the flash protection is there to stop the application, when running
normally, from accidentally erasing the flash.
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com
13 matches
Mail list logo
