On Sunday 29 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > > I disagree. You can't use flash without a target. We should never > > offer that command without a target for it to be used with. The user > > should not need to pull the two together on their own. > > Sure you can! I even believe that there is some support > for this in OpenOCD. The flash chip would then be directly > connected to the JTAG chain.
And I'll repeat that *address space access* really ought to get split out from *target*. There are debug architectures -- Nexus, and ARM's ADIv5 come quickly to mind -- which can expose address space access without necessarily having a debuggable CPU/target involved. So it's eminently practical to have access to flash without having a target, in those cases. > I don't understand the win for end-users to be required to specify, > target or flash chip when there is only one in the system. > > On a technical level I see the problem of having e.g. cortex commands > passed to a mips target. Which is why we need to be using Tcl more intelligently. I like the idea of commands getting rid of the notion of "current target" from all command implementations and documentation ... replacing it instead with "the target whose interpreter is in front of the rest of the command engines". > I view the flash write_image as high level utility command, not something that > the target offers. It's coupled to an address space. If that were a first level concept, a lot of the other stuff would fall out cleanly. (Yes, older cores do couple target and address space, since it's the CPU/target which is doing the memory access instead of a debug port.) - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
