On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:24 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 25 October 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>> >
>> > Am I wrong in my assertion that these commands are ARM-specific and do
>> > not belong in target.h? That seems like one reasonable objection for
>> > holding off with integrating thi
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >
> > Am I wrong in my assertion that these commands are ARM-specific and do
> > not belong in target.h? That seems like one reasonable objection for
> > holding off with integrating this series.
>
> Your assumption is correct, but it is unreasona
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Øyvind wrote:
> > >> This whole mrc/mcr thing is about driving
> > >> OpenOCD in the direction of polymorphic interfaces
> > >> at the C and command level, ref recent "mww phys"
> > >> work.
If you wanted polymorphism at the command level, then
it's n
On Saturday 24 October 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> Is this the right level though? Anything that is specific to ARM should
> not be in target.[ch].
I seem to recall writing the same thing not long ago.
There may be an echo in the room. I'm also sure I've
seen some emails arrive twice...
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> The natural place for this would IHMO be armv4_5, this will include
> Armv7A targets
There seems to be some agreement on "armv4_5" as the
right place for such stuff to live.
I'll hope we can get agreement that it should be
renamed, and cleaned up
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> I prefer read_cp/write_cp to mrc/mcr, since we really want to read/write
> to the coprocessor registers. The fact that this is implemented using
> the mrc/mcr instructions is not important here. There are no other arm
> instructions treated like
On Sunday 25 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> w.r.t. retiring old commands, I won't do that until I know for sure that
> the new ones are tested. Possibly with some tcl proc frontend
> to the new command to support the old syntax.
There aren't enough in-tree users of the old syntax to care
abo
> Yes armv4_5 is more of an intermediate (abstract) class than a pure
> interface. It is the "right" place also to implement some common
> functionality.
So making armv4_5 a pure interface first and then adding it to
arm11 would be a good step...
w.r.t. retiring old commands, I won't do that unti
As usual, I vote for not retiring old versions to quickly.
/M
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
> Thanks for commenting on actual mrc/mcr stuff :-)
>
> I can't really comment on whether read_cp/write_cp would be better,
> I trust you on that one. It should be a trivial modification to the
> command or interface once we have something common across
> the implementations to build on.
>
>> The n
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 12:31 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> You make excellent general points in your post and I agree
>> to what you are saying, however here I'm discussing mrc/mcr
>> specifically and how to proceed with that one.
>>
>> Did you
Thanks for commenting on actual mrc/mcr stuff :-)
I can't really comment on whether read_cp/write_cp would be better,
I trust you on that one. It should be a trivial modification to the
command or interface once we have something common across
the implementations to build on.
> The natural place
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 12:31 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> You make excellent general points in your post and I agree
> to what you are saying, however here I'm discussing mrc/mcr
> specifically and how to proceed with that one.
>
> Did you read up on mrc/mcr in targets and consider
> the current
2009-10-25 12:31, Øyvind Harboe skrev:
> You make excellent general points in your post and I agree
> to what you are saying, however here I'm discussing mrc/mcr
> specifically and how to proceed with that one.
>
> Did you read up on mrc/mcr in targets and consider
> the current patches& changes i
You make excellent general points in your post and I agree
to what you are saying, however here I'm discussing mrc/mcr
specifically and how to proceed with that one.
Did you read up on mrc/mcr in targets and consider
the current patches & changes in detail?
If you still disagree with my piecemail
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 10:56 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> btw, the mrc/mcr work was just a natural followup on
> the work I did on physical memory read/write.
>
> It's something that's supported very differently across lots
> of targets today, but really should be handled in the same
> manner.
Ye
btw, the mrc/mcr work was just a natural followup on
the work I did on physical memory read/write.
It's something that's supported very differently across lots
of targets today, but really should be handled in the same
manner.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-10-
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 15:03 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Attached are the remaining patches for the first round of
> target->type->mcr/mrc support.
>
> There is a writeup in TODO of the harder targets
> that remain. E.g. arm966e support requires good knowledge
> of that target + ideally access to
Attached are the remaining patches for the first round of
target->type->mcr/mrc support.
There is a writeup in TODO of the harder targets
that remain. E.g. arm966e support requires good knowledge
of that target + ideally access to test hardware, so that's not
something I can or should attempt at t
19 matches
Mail list logo
