On Friday 30 October 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > @@ -906,7 +906,9 @@ static int arm926ejs_virt2phys(struct ta
> > static int arm926ejs_mmu(struct target_s *target, int *enabled)
> > {
> > armv4_5_common_t *armv4_5 = target->arch_info;
> > - arm926ejs_common_t *arm926ejs = armv4_5->arch_info;
> > + arm7_9_common_t *arm7_9 = armv4_5->arch_info;
> > + arm9tdmi_common_t *arm9tdmi = arm7_9->arch_info;
> > + arm926ejs_common_t *arm926ejs = arm9tdmi->arch_info;
> >
> > if (target->state != TARGET_HALTED)
> > {
>
> Well...
>
> I really don't like this pointer business. No type checking at all,
> etc. This should be turned upside down as you suggested already: embed
> more generic structures within the more specific ones, and copy the
> container_of() macro from Linux to get at the outer structure when
> needed.
I was working on such patches when I noticed this goof ...
arm926ejs = target_to_arm926(target);
without all that other crap is a *LOT* cleaner IMO. Very
few of the functions need pointers to the "inner" structs;
that idiom just makes things confusing.
However, such changes would be wrong to merge before we
finally let 0.3.x out the door.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
