Hello,
please don't cut the part of my mail, that describe the problem:
-->"With the u-boot version from git from yesterday, flash init take -->"about 20 seconds (it tooks no noticeable time with the last version)."
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 441DC9C7.5070301@t-online.de you wrote:
This is not acceptable.
It is also not acceptable to disable flash protection.
This has been discussed before. Please see the archives.
The feature is good, but in a common piece of code, there should be a way to disable it.
The problem is the code, that "invents" this "auto" flash unprotection in the flash_init routine. Please consider, that there are systems out with the env in eeprom, and, by the way, reading the "unlock" variable
It is your own problem if you store important data like the U-Boot environment in inherently unreliable memory like I2C EEPROM. I will not discuss this here. Also, I don't see how this is related to the CFI driver code.
Without starting this thread again, this is true only for some type of hardware.
with the loop for each devive two times is not too good coding style.
Please feel free to submit a patch that improves the code.
Please be carefull with changes, that have an impact to other systems.
All this has been discussed a long, long time ago. Also, if you read carefully, you wil see that the behaviour is run-time configurable using the "unlock" environment variable.
So what exactly are you complaining about? Maybe you can come up with a constructive comment...
1. The startup time of the flash module is now more then 20 seconds! This is more then the CPCI750 need's to the command prompt before the invention of this feature. This is due to the fact, that flash_init is called before env_relocate, and the bad implementation of the unprotect feature. 2. The code, that invent the flash unlock has the quality of a "quick hack": If you have four flash banks, the env will be read eight times, one time should be enough. 3. That i can not get rid of these unprotect feature with a build option: It is allways in the code, if CFG_FLASH_PROTECTION is enabled, a CFG_FLASH_NOAUTOPROTECT would help to get rid of this code, if i do not need it.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Kind regards
Reinhard Arlt