On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David Brownell<davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote: >> > Is there some problem the current scheme has? >> >> Yes. > > Not according to what you say below ... > > >> Lets say I have no idea what the default target script does, >> but I know *precisely* what my board needs: srst_only >> srst_pulls_trst. > > There's no problem, then. If that's what the board needs, > just say so in its board.cfg file: > > reset_config srst_only srst_pulls_trst
This can be broken. How do I know that this eliminates all the other options that reset_config can take? Better to use "reset_config none xxx" in the board file. > It's very rare that any chip config file needs to say anything > about resetting ... since most of the time it's a function of > board wiring. Except lots of these chips have srst_pulls_trst wired on the *inside* of the CPU part.... >> What the heck should I write in the board config file to be *sure* >> to override anything that the board config file defined? > > If you can't read the board config file you're modifying > to see what it previously defined, you're in trouble. :) It's a problem if I have to read all the lines of code in the entire program before changing a single line. I'm not saying that's the case here, but with "reset_config none xxx" in the board config file, I don't need to worry about the target file. -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://www.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
