On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Lots of good points! Thanks for excellent communication.
Yea Tanks :-) However it takes lots of time and attention... and right now I have at least 5 things to do at yesterday :-( >> What is the other way to add such big changes to the project when >> the change is ready? > > The key to making big changes is to break them up into smaller > logical changes, which can be reviewed one at a time, and included > one at a time. It sounds like you are already working somehow like that. Yea, the changes are divided and introduced as commits. Every commit should be very very clear to understand. Every commit contains detailed description what happened and why. All code is documented with Doxygen. The code was all the time at http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/libswd.git What this discussion seems to be about is the commits order and variable names... not the functional changes and core stuff. >> Maybe, if you don't trust my changes (which is reasonable assumption), > > I can't say - I haven't looked at them yet, and as you say I want to > do that before discussing them much further. >> This is why I suggested to concentrate on the core development > > This is important, I think it is a blocker for the finished SWD > support. Let's look at the code. >> I prefer to talk over the code > > Yes - I'll have a look before writing more. At last :-) I just could not understand the whole discussion and resistance of the people that did not even read the code they were discussing about... The whole discussion is not about starting work on SWD in OpenOCD. The work is already done and review + testing! >> Please note that I only changed one thing in >> existing structure of OpenOCD and that thing was experimental anyway. > > For the quite significant functional change of adding SWD support to > OpenOCD I rather expect exactly the opposite - it doesn't make sense > to shoehorn a new concept into code which lacks good provisions for > that concept. The very first thing to do is to change surroundings > so that the new concept fits in naturally. Again, I have planned two things: 1. Cleaning up the internals. 2. Extending OpenOCD with SWD capabilities. As the SWD was higher priority at the time I have chosen this as the first step. Meanwhile I have got familiar with the internals, organization and problems with the OpenOCD. I have created external library named LibSWD that makes SWD possible in a platform independent manner. It works also with other programs. As the SWD work is finished here, now I want to get into internals reorganization. Everything was communicated and discussed on the list, we have discussed that and my work is documented on http://stm32primer2swd.sf.net . >> This is why I am communicating my will to change internals and the way >> I like it to be done (separate thread), there is a time for discussion >> and argument between different point of view. > > Absolutely - my point is that for SWD we should have finished such a > thread before you spent too much time on writing code. The discussion was started about two years ago. The code is out there, public, ready, working. If you don't like the solution (which seems you really did not even read) you are free to create a better one, if its better even I will use it :-) But I need to move forward :-) If you consider my solution unacceptable (please, first read it), it will work in other places, but yes I will consider this project a waste of time... bla bla Sorry, but reading this thread and writing another mail took 30 minutes of my time and attention (and maybe some 1..2hours today) which I really need in other places. Please read the code, look at the solution, then comment :-) I would really prefer to sit 30 minutes and fix stuff that needs to be fixed, let's concentrate on what is important most :-) 1. The SWD code is ready for testing. 2. I have introduced some elements of new organization. They does not change existing code, except one change in transport. We do not agree on variables prefix, we agree on C, we agree on layers. 3. If you want to do the internals reorganization first, go ahead, people will not have SWD working and the only place where this works is my public fork... If you can introduce better organization of the SWD, please do so, on a very precise example, preferably a working code example, but please read my solution first if you relate to it and make comments about it. If you want to make internals reorganization first, SWD will wait, lets move to a separate thread and discuss the details. Best regards :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
