On Saturday 13 June 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 21:42 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Doc update: say "jtag newtap ... -disable" records the
> > state after exiting the RESET state, matching the only
> > implementation we're working with so far (TI ICEpick-C).
> >
> > Matching code updates, including a few minor cleanups
> > mostly related to the JTAG event callback mechanism:
> >
> > - a memory leak in jtag_tap_free()
> > - fix conceptual bug in unregistering JTAG event callbacks
> > - remove hidden assumption about JTAG event numbering
> > - move function declarations to the header where they belong
> > - some end'o'line whitespace
> >
> > Now we're sure the "enable" flag value is correct after resets.
>
> Why did you move the declarations of jtag_tap_{init,free} to the bottom
> of jtag.h?
Lack of reason to put them anywhere else in that file. They
clearly didn't belong as externs in that ".c" file, though.
> Also, would it be too much to ask to separate your changes into slightly
> smaller pieces?
No problem. This is the patch where I would have expected pushback
on that point. ;)
I *am* however hoping to get some feedback from folk who have had
their Beagles working, to whatever degree, with previous stuff.
And "try out this series of a dozen patches" is a losing game.
Three ... is doable.
> Plus, you will motivate me to finish the "import series from e-mail"
> portions of my patch handling scripts, if you start producing series of
> patches with a dozen patches each. Or do you think my recent practices
> have taken this idea too far?
You mean, checking in lots of patches without posting them to the
list even as an FYI?
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
