> Not really closed, but this one I delegated to you and you
> didn't want this merged yet. :)
>
> I asked specifically about both categories ("must", "want")
> and they're both open ... "want" closes earliest though.
There's conflicting "want"'s. I want to get going w/0.4 dev,
because there are
Could you try a git bisect procedure to find out if
this broke since 0.2 and what version that broke?
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
___
Openocd-development mailing list
> reset
JTAG tap: s3c2410.cpu tap/device found: 0x0032409d (mfg: 0x04e, part:
0x0324, ver: 0x0)
> halt
target state: halted
target halted in ARM state due to debug-request, current mode: Supervisor
cpsr: 0x40d3 pc: 0x33f94990
MMU: disabled, D-Cache: enabled, I-Cache: enabled
> nand probe 0
Addr
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> That is, "git describe efef05870d726fe4cb6786d785fae4628fe7ec1e"
> will tell you that it's 125 commits after the v0.2.0 tag.
BTW, when using that 40 character hex string, you can abbreviate it to
the first 7 or 8 characters. Git will accept it as long
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Dennis.Cheng wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> When I tried to use OpenOCD detect NAND flash in S3C2410 platform(nand probe
> 0), I got the "Address translation failure" result.
> I tried "reset" then "halt", "Address translation failure" was still exist.
> But when I enter "r
Hi folks,
When I tried to use OpenOCD detect NAND flash in S3C2410 platform(nand probe
0), I got the "Address translation failure" result.
I tried "reset" then "halt", "Address translation failure" was still exist.
But when I enter "reset; halt" command, NAND flash probe is OK.
I think it is OpenO
On Monday 02 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > My suggestion was only to fix the error message.
>
> I think that would be OK, but it's in the "nice" category
> rather than "must" category. I think David has pretty
> much closed the "nice" category at this point. There's
> lots of stuff in th
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 19:35, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:07 PM, David Brownell wrote:
>>> On Monday 02 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
Hmm, even the correction is wrong again:
Parameter 1 is not the
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 19:35, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:07 PM, David Brownell wrote:
>> On Monday 02 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
>>> Hmm, even the correction is wrong again:
>>>
>>> Parameter 1 is not the target name an ARM11 device.
>>> should be:
>>> Parameter 1 is
On Monday 02 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I don't know when 2646 was compared to 0.2... Don't know offhand
> how to check that w/git.
As I noted earlier: "git log", then use the search
mechanism to find "@2646" ... which points to:
> > That SVN id matches
> > efef05870d726f
If 2646 was pre 0.2 and I don't manage to fix this tomorrow, then
0.3 should go ahead.
I'd love to have this included in 0.3 though No pressure Pieter ;-)
--
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
_
2009/11/2 David Brownell :
> On Monday 02 November 2009, Pieter Conradie wrote:
>> ...
>> SVN2645: works
>> SVN2646: broken
>> ...
>> It appears that SVN2646 did break it.
>
> So this *is* a regression.
Maybe maybe not...
I was 100% convinced it was a regression in 2646, but the logs
from the two
On Monday 02 November 2009, Pieter Conradie wrote:
> ...
> SVN2645: works
> SVN2646: broken
> ...
> It appears that SVN2646 did break it.
So this *is* a regression. That SVN id matches
efef05870d726fe4cb6786d785fae4628fe7ec1e, also
known to "git describe" as v0.2.0-125-gefef058;
so it happened 12
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:07 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
>> Hmm, even the correction is wrong again:
>>
>> Parameter 1 is not the target name an ARM11 device.
>> should be:
>> Parameter 1 is not the target name of an ARM11 device.
>
> I'd not object
On Monday 02 November 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
> Hmm, even the correction is wrong again:
>
> Parameter 1 is not the target name an ARM11 device.
> should be:
> Parameter 1 is not the target name of an ARM11 device.
I'd not object to seeing that fixed. But I'll leave
such a merge up to Øyvind,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2009, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
>> In the data sheets for all lm3s811 revisions only version 1 is
>> described. What to do with the stuff? Can revision number be made
>> "don't care" or for info purpose only, if it really h
Hmm, even the correction is wrong again:
Parameter 1 is not the target name an ARM11 device.
should be:
Parameter 1 is not the target name of an ARM11 device.
Michael
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:18, Michael Bruck wrote:
> You could consider fixing the error message in arm11.c that you can
> see i
You could consider fixing the error message in arm11.c that you can
see in the first hunk of this diff:
http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/digenius.git?a=commitdiff;h=15d8c480d204a56d60c1ce565c076473b7319d13
Michael
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 05:31, David Brownell wrote:
> So: We tagged RC0 about four d
On Monday 02 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >
> > That is, encapsulate the "step" (or disassemble, etc)
> > logic in an object that's distinct from the target.
> >
> > That's a good general technique. It's wrong to have
> > stuffed *everything* in the target class hierarchy;
> > there are o
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:12 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 01 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> static int arm11_simulate_step(target_t *target, uint32_t *dry_run_pc)
>> {
>> struct arm_sim_interface sim;
>>
>> sim.user_data=target->arch_info;
>> sim.get_reg=&a
1. NB! The svn version #'s listed in the git log do not match the svn
version #'s in the original repository. Going forward we should
stick to git for testing.
I assume you referred to the old svn version #'s in your testing?
2. I've tightened up the way working memory is
handled for the MMU enab
On Sunday 01 November 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> static int arm11_simulate_step(target_t *target, uint32_t *dry_run_pc)
> {
> struct arm_sim_interface sim;
>
> sim.user_data=target->arch_info;
> sim.get_reg=&arm11_sim_get_reg;
> sim.set_reg=&arm11_sim_set_reg;
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
