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