On Friday 12 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote: > > > I say "most" issues since (a) there's no interlock between a polling > > context and anything else, which may eventually trigger SMP issues; > > and (b) this is one of several areas where the jtag and target layers > > could stand to interact more cleanly. > > This patch makes me twitch: the JTAG layer should not use "target.h". > How can we do this without introducing a layering violation?
That's a fine question, and is exactly what I meant by (b). I don't have a good answer, but note that [patch 2/3] has the same requirement to access things that the target code is keeping excessively close. The "layer" boundaries are clearly not quite right. For 0.2.0 I suggest not worrying about this; layering is there to help structure things, not to prevent solutions. The scope is very limited. The flag used in [patch 1/3] might better be modeled as a global mutex gating ownership to the JTAG stack ... but that concept isn't there in the code. The target stack could just stick to a private flags. Maybe the stuff in [patch 2/3] would better be modeled as JTAG events delivered to that TAP. Target code would just listen for TAP enable events. - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
