I agree that using the expected capture value makes a lot more sense than using the zero id. I'll send a patch later today.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:49 AM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > On Saturday 03 October 2009, John Rigby wrote: > > You were right about the ir lengths, but I also had to put back in the > code > > that ignores non b01 for taps with 0 ids. The i.mx31 has the same weird > tap > > with no id and no b01 in the capture. > > Hmm. I changed the diagnostics a bit in a recent patch, and > that leaves it in a good position to just switch over to > using the value and mask provided with TAP declaration. > > Doing it that way ... and the i.mx31 and i.mx25 could both > just declare a capture value (or mask!) of zero and have > it all work OK -- right? If so, could you work up a patch > which does it that way? I suspect that could merge in time > for the 0.3.x release, then. > > Thing is, we do have wierd hardware to cope with and so we > evidently need to relax that test. But the original code > was a hack since it relaxed it for *everything* instead of > just for the minority of cases which really needed it. And > on top of that, there was no comment explaining what class > of wierdness was involved... > > - Dave >
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
