Hi folks, I’ve noticed that there are quite a lot of Flash “protect” callbacks that don’t actually do anything to the hardware. Some of them just loop through and set the “is_protected” values; one of them (pic32mx) doesn’t even do that, it does literally nothing and then returns ERROR_OK. The psoc6 one does nothing and returns ERROR_OK, but prints a LOG_WARN saying it’s not supported.
This all seems wrong to me. None of them are actually doing any protecting of the Flash. In my opinion, none of them should return ERROR_OK; I think they should all be deleted so that attempts to use them will take the NULL-check path in “flash_driver_protect”, print an error message, and return ERROR_FLASH_OPER_UNSUPPORTED, a sane value. Leaving them as is, in my opinion, is just misleading to the user, who *thinks* they’re doing some sort of protection when they really aren’t. It’s especially egregious for hardware that *has* protection capability but where the OpenOCD driver hasn’t implemented it (the user would expect that the “protect” command, if it succeeds, has activated that capability), but seems silly also for hardware that doesn’t have that capability at all. Thoughts? -- Christopher Head
pgpxyn89RSHks.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
