| ??? 07/01/10 15:43 Read: times |
#177030 - interesting concept Responding to: ???'s previous message |
you achieve the same (as I do with separate programs) by not allowing the bootloader to write itself and the "bootloader code comparison" is an interesting idea.
I did not read your linked code but responded to "In there you will find that I discourage the use of two separate C programs" which in most cases, albeit not yours, I would disagree with. My perspective for this was that last time I bootloaded a system there was 9 chips involved and going through the bootloader code for 9 chips is time prohibitive. I will, definitely, should the occsion arise consider the "bootloader code comparison" as a means of verification. I think labeling my method "hogwash" only applies when your (till now unknown to me) method is implemented. So, in conclusion, there are good ways to do it separately and good ways to do it in one heap. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| IAP / Dual applications and interrupts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bootloaders Share Interrupts Like This | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not necessarily a good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hogworts..... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interesting concept | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| an added note | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Does the bootloader _have_ to use interrupts? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Forwarding of interrupts. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| And for reliability... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Special Hardware Features Also Show up | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| emphasizing another factor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Let me comment on that... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yet another consideration with boot loader. | 01/01/70 00:00 |