On Sunday 31 October 2010 13:16:43 Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:59 AM, David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > I think caring about the "variant" should strongly > > be avoided. Use the ROM table by default. Only in > > the case of a broken ROM table should we (a) emit > > a message, then (b) work around the brokenness. > > Such working-around might care about variant, if wecan't > > > >come up with a simple heuristic fix. >
Would you mind not dropping me from the CC ? Thanks > It would be great if we could detect the one broken chip > out there and simply add a workaround(with warning). Implemented in V2, which should have just landed in the mailing list ... Peter, David, sorry for not CCing you, next time, you'll be there (well, I hope there will be no next time and that the patches are good :) ). > > I'd suppose such bugs would be much less common with > more recent Cortex A8 chips. I hope so as well > > Adding options is the last resort as it makes OpenOCD harder > to use and gives it a more unfinished feeling. This is open source. > If there is a chance that we might need to add support for a new > CPU in the future, then we don't add some option in the hope that > it can work around the next bug, we just add the workaround when > and if that time comes. So can you please check the V2s ? Thanks ! _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
