On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:46 PM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > On Monday 01 February 2010, Edgar Grimberg wrote: >> On the other hand, for other drivers, shouldn't flash info do a protection >> check on the background? Otherwise the information presented by the >> flash info command is *wrong*. > > So far as I can tell, it's only valid after "flash protect_check".
Correct. > What might make more sense is to have the 0.5 series dump that > status only after "protect_check" ... like it only dumps erase > status after "erase_check". Or we can clone the functionality of at91sam7 flash driver. The last thing in at91sam7_protect function is to call at91sam7_protect_check, so the information is updated. The initial state is filled in with real data in at91sam7_read_part_info, that is called by at91sam7_probe. Checking for the protection status of sectors is a "light" operation (unlike check erase), so we can query the hardware as a side effect of some commands (flash protect and flash probe, as in the sam7 driver). Regards, Edgar -- Edgar Grimberg System Developer Zylin AS ZY1000 JTAG Debugger http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html Phone: (+47) 51 63 25 00 _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
