> Thanks for commenting on actual mrc/mcr stuff :-) > > I can't really comment on whether read_cp/write_cp would be better, > I trust you on that one. It should be a trivial modification to the > command or interface once we have something common across > the implementations to build on. > >> The natural place for this would IHMO be armv4_5, this will include >> Armv7A >> targets but not Armv7M targets. > > armv4_5 isn't used for arm11, so armv4_5 doesn't quite work. > > Note that armv4_5 is not a pure interface, it's a mix > of an interface and an implementation. > > > > -- > Ãyvind Harboe > http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html > ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex > JTAG debugger and flash programmer >
The Arm11 code in OpenOCD was written from scratch and does not use the common Armv4_5 infrastructure or even coding conventions. This is interesting as an alternative test implementation, but we should not use it as an argument on how common ARM architecture stuff should be handled. In this case we keep arm11 as is and later arm11 should be modified to align with the rest of the ARM architecture. Yes armv4_5 is more of an intermediate (abstract) class than a pure interface. It is the "right" place also to implement some common functionality. Best regards, Magnus _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
