Øyvind Harboe writes:
>> I agree it's bit scary. However,
>>
>> dump_image phys memory.img 0x3000 134217728
>>
>> currently enables and disables the MMU and caches 239674 times. Isn't
>> this also quite scary or is it really harmless?
>
> This suggests that a better approach would be to add a
> I agree it's bit scary. However,
>
> dump_image phys memory.img 0x3000 134217728
>
> currently enables and disables the MMU and caches 239674 times. Isn't
> this also quite scary or is it really harmless?
This suggests that a better approach would be to add a
generic mmu enable/disable (+ re
Øyvind Harboe writes:
>> Should "phys" flag also be added to "load_image" command?
>
> And what about the verify_image command?
Yes that too.
>> Alternatively, would it be possible to expose
>> e.g. arm920t_disable_mmu_caches somehow to the command interface so
>> that I could disable the MMU an
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Timo Juhani Lindfors
wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe writes:
>> This patch introduces a serious and sweeping regression that
>> a compiler warning caught:
>
> Indeed. Thanks for catching this and sorry for forgetting the return.
>
>> How's the attached updated patch?
>
>
Øyvind Harboe writes:
> This patch introduces a serious and sweeping regression that
> a compiler warning caught:
Indeed. Thanks for catching this and sorry for forgetting the return.
> How's the attached updated patch?
Looks definitely better.
Should "phys" flag also be added to "load_image"
This patch introduces a serious and sweeping regression that
a compiler warning caught:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
src/target/target.c: In function ‘target_read_buffer’:
src/target/target.c:1490: error: control reaches end of non-void function
How's the attached updated patch?
(Othe
---
doc/openocd.texi|9 ++---
src/target/target.c | 37 +
2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/openocd.texi b/doc/openocd.texi
index 70d789a..1b75f94 100644
--- a/doc/openocd.texi
+++ b/doc/openocd.texi
@@ -5731,9 +5
