[ECOS] _flash_xxx() in flash_am29xxxxx.inl

[Gary Thomas]

On Sun, 2002-07-28 at 23:44, Motoya Kurotsu wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I guess that the reason why three functions of flash_query, 
> flash_erase_block and flash_program_buf should be placed in ram is 
> that the execution of those codes might overwrite themselves. 
> If my guess is correct, I think that _flash_query, _flash_erase_block and 
> _flash_program_buf should be also put in ram by the same reason.

Actually the reason that these routines must run from RAM is to
prevent accesses to ROM/FLASH during their execution.  The routines
you want to patch don't actually touch the FLASH space (except via
the call to the _XXX routine that does the work), so they can reside
anywhere.  Your patch would have no effect - ill or positive.

The question about overwriting the FLASH space must be managed outside
these routines, e.g. by the RedBoot FLASH framework.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/ecos-discuss/attachments/20020729/c612530c/attachment.sig>