On Monday 28 September 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> Is this the expected behaviour now, as previous versions would fail > >> silently > >> if no id was given. > > > > I changed that when I changed it to make sure it didn't > > drop messages in various cases. I think it's better to > > get the config files updated, so startup verification > > can do a better job, but I might be persuaded otherwise. > > It should at least be *possible* not to check the ID's even > if one is strongly encouraged(kind word and a gun) to > add them...
By "not check" you must mean some more complex conditional than is there now ... it'd obviously have to check to see whether it should "not check"! Else it'd be "never check". Maybe you just want to suppress the warning? There seem to be several basic cases, combinining the two TAP options (BYPASS vs IDCODE) vs two config options (no options for "-expected-id" vs one-or-more): 1 BYPASS-only TAP a no IDs listed b IDs listed but (obviously) not found 2 IDCODE support a no IDs listed b IDs listed ... one is found c IDs listed ... no match Now, I'd contend that all those are handled well just now. Would handling "-expected-id 0" as a "match anything" wildcard suit, as an explicit "stifle warnings" option for (2a) or, in fact, any branch of (2)? - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
