Lpc2000

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, Jayasooriah <jayasooriah@...> wrote:
>
> 1/  The coding of the flash programming algorithm in the boot loader 
> unreliable because: a) it depends on wait loops rather than polling 
the 
> flash controller status register; and b) it requires clock frequency 
to be 
> passed as a run-time argument.
> 
> 2/  The boot loader includes code that writes to flash, and as the 
flash 
> device is not protected by feed sequences (industry standard for 
flash 
> memories) you can get accidental trashing of the boot loader when the 
> application misbehaves.
> 

Jaya,

This is indeed useful information. Do you have any examples of specific 
failure modes that you've observed?

Without them, your observations may be misinterpreted as "I don't like 
the way the boot loader is implemented", rather than a particular 
problem. As you yourself pointed out, you like to "stay away from being 
critical of design choices made by whoever implemented the boot 
loader". This might explain some of the negative reaction you've been 
getting, as well as lack of response from Philips.

Clearly, it's valuable to know of any situation where if you do "X" 
then "Y" (something bad or unexpected) happens. Debating design and 
implementation choices made by Philips I'd suggest has a more limited 
appeal.

Brendan