- sorry if you receive this message twice
but I'm not sure my previous message reached the list -
Right! My main concern was actually that when I flash
a bootloader (around 20k) I almost always get a verify
error between addresses 0x2000 and 0x2100 (by the way,
have you ever been reported such a problem?)
This makes it extremely tedious to use a bootloader,
and so far, I haven't got one running to flash memory
via a serial cable of anything.
What I'll prbably do is that I'll modify jtag so that it does
this:
1 erase the block
2 flash memory between 0x2000 and 0x2100
3 verify. If ok, then go to 4, otherwise go to 1
4 flash the rest
5 verify. Everything's ok at that point
this is very bad but I just can't sit in front of my=20
board for hours before it succeeds to flash 20k.
Alternatively, I could flash a small program at 0x0 that just
jumps to another location, where I will have programmed the whole
bootloader.
Thanks,
Greg.
-------------------
> Hi Gregory.
>=20
> On 2003.06.19 12:52, Gregory Heinrich wrote:
> > there's two reasons why I got interested in this:
> > - first: when you program something into flash, and there
> > is a verify error, it's a bit of a pity having to
> > reprogram everything just because a couple of bits
> > were wrong,
> > - second: if you have a large chunk of data you want to keep
> > and just want to alter a few words, then it is inefficient
> > to have to reprogram everything.
> >=20
> > Maybe it would be more optimal to:
> > - modify the verification code so that instead of returning
> > an error message, it erases the few words that were wrong
> > and reprograms them with the appropriate value,
>=20
> It is impossible. Erase must be done for whole block, not only for
some=20
> words.
>=20
> > - add an option in the flashmem command in which you
> > can specify which programming method you want to use:
> > * erase whole block and program flash
>=20
> This could be reached by separating "erase" from "flashmem".
>=20
> > * or, do not erase block, but perform erase cycles instead
> > you could use the former for flashing a big file, or the
> > latter for flashing a small file when there's already
> > another big file in the same block.
>=20
> Erase must be done for whole block.
>=20
> > I can try to implement it, but I'd like to know if it sounds
> > reasonable.
>=20
> IMHO, no. But some minor ideas could be probably implemented. It is
up=20
> to you :).
>=20
> OTOH, flashing large files using JTAG is a bad idea. Better is to
flash=20
> small application which download large file using alternative
channel=20
> (serial, USB, etc.) and flash it at full CPU speed.
>=20
>=20
> Best regards.
>=20
> --=20
> +-------------------------------------------+
> | Marcel Telka e-mail: marcel@... |
> | homepage: http://telka.sk/ |
> | jabber: marcel@... |
> +-------------------------------------------+
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
> Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting
Partner.
> Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly
Commission!
> INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting
http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> openwince-list mailing list
> openwince-list@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openwince-list
>=20
>=20
|