On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.har...@zylin.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Drasko DRASKOVIC > <drasko.drasko...@gmail.com> wrote: >> BTW, do you have any idea why this step is necessary >> to prevent these errors ? > > You keep insisting that it is an error. > > Is it? > > Or is it just a debug/progress message?
The log is something like this : Debug: 448 9210 ft2232.c:1959 ft2232_execute_scan(): ft2232 buffer size reached, sending queued commands (first_unsent: 0xb799b944, cmd: 0xb7890bbc) Debug: 449 9250 ft2232.c:1959 ft2232_execute_scan(): ft2232 buffer size reached, sending queued commands (first_unsent: 0xb7890bbc, cmd: 0xb7785e08) Debug: 450 9291 ft2232.c:1959 ft2232_execute_scan(): ft2232 buffer size reached, sending queued commands (first_unsent: 0xb7785e08, cmd: 0xb767b080) Debug: 451 9331 ft2232.c:1959 ft2232_execute_scan(): ft2232 buffer size reached, sending queued commands (first_unsent: 0xb767b080, cmd: 0xb75702cc) Error: 453 9403 mips32_pracc.c:1101 mips32_pracc_fastdata_xfer(): mini program did not return to start User : 454 9403 command.c:557 command_print(): 361064 bytes written at address 0x80080000 User : 455 9403 command.c:557 command_print(): downloaded 361540 bytes in 1.035658s (340.910 KiB/s) This behavior provokes an error in mips32_pracc_fastdata_xfer(). I described the fix, although I came to it by trial/error/instinct. I thought that we must shift out something somehow out of the buffer, so I tried jtag_execute_queue(). I would like to know the real explanation, though... BR, Drasko _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
