On Wednesday 23 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > I do think it might be useful to print actual address > ranges erased in some reasonably terse and non > warning format.
If it's going to be erasing data beyond what it was told to erase, we deserve at the very least a warning. That's pretty basic: don't destroy user data. And if you must, at least warn that something may now be broken. > This would help the user learn what flash address_range > / write_image erase is doing and should cover your concern > as well, I think. My concern is that it erases the wrong address range: a bigger one than I told it to erase. Just a warning from "flash erase_address ..." would NOT be enough. What we have right now is some upper layer calls (at least "write_image") that are trying to rely on a lower level interface that was dangerously broken ... when it should just be telling those lower level calls exactly what to do. - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
