David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 02 February 2010, Spencer Oliver wrote: >>> By the way ... if STR7 can't actually read the protect status from >>> the hardware, why does that flash driver have a str7x_protect_check() >>> method which pretends to do exactly that, instead of just printing >>> a warning that the status can't be read? >>> >> The register reflects the state of a non-volatile register. > > Doesn't actually reflect it *except* right after reset, > if I understand correctly... > >
That's correct, infact the there are two protection registers used. One is volatile and the other is non-volatile - we can only see the non-volatile one. Just we do not know the address of the volatile register. >> So after a reset halt - reading this register returns valid protection data. >> >> Any writes to this register are not reflected by reading the register again. > > I see. Sort of. Seems like a needlessly bizarre model. > As if some chip designer couldn't be bothered to do it > in a generally useful manner. :( > That's ST for you, must be the French climate :) The str7x family was a spin off from the STA2051 (vespucci) gps stuff they did for automotive. Cheers Spen _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
