Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD Cortex-A8 / S5PC100 support...?

Hi everyone, At 07:38 10/12/2010 +0100, Peter Stuge wrote: Tomek CEDRO wrote: (replying to Nick Pelling) I've asked Samsung for documentation listing all its JTAG codes, but that may take some time to Hello Nick, the other problem is that Samsung may want you to sign the NDA and keep

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Øyvind Harboe wrote: Two versions attached. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to implement this I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a smaller my own project then I'd gone with the

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On 10/12/2010 08:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Peter Stugepe...@stuge.se wrote: Øyvind Harboe wrote: Two versions attached. I'll leave it to you to decide which is the best way to implement this I prefer the longer but simpler to read one. Were it mostly a

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On 2010/12/10 17:34, Øyvind Harboe wrote: I think optimizing for testability readability is the way to go here. Especially considering the evidence that this code doesn't get tested a whole lot I can verify that both solutions work. I'm OK with whichever solution you guys choose since

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/7] cfi: add time format to cfi query output

On 09/12/2010 10:02, Luca Ottaviano wrote: Nitpicking comment: you should also add buf[buf_size - 1] = '\0'; before the end of the function, as snprintf() doesn't guarantee that if you print more than buf_size chars. Regards, True, i will look at a solution that fixes the issue throughout

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote: Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell? They (the target versions) don't appear to have the same problem. The only difference I can see is that the

[Openocd-development] HALT mode lost on SoC reset (CPU switches to RUNNING mode, OpenOCD does not hold it in HALT)

Hi all, I have run into one interesting issue, so I was hoping that somebody could help me understand the problem. My SoC has JTAG with no SRST (just TRST), and system reset can be done in two ways : 1) mechanically, by pressing the reset button 2) writing one byte to dedicated SOC_RESET register

[Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] contrib: add source to the cfi flash loaders

From: Spencer Oliver ntfr...@users.sourceforge.net Signed-off-by: Spencer Oliver ntfr...@users.sourceforge.net --- contrib/loaders/flash/armv4_5_cfi_intel_16.s| 57 + contrib/loaders/flash/armv4_5_cfi_intel_32.s| 57 +

[Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] contrib: make sure loaders use correct arch

From: Spencer Oliver ntfr...@users.sourceforge.net Signed-off-by: Spencer Oliver ntfr...@users.sourceforge.net --- contrib/loaders/flash/pic32mx.s |1 + contrib/loaders/flash/stm32x.s |1 + contrib/loaders/flash/str7x.s |2 ++ contrib/loaders/flash/str9x.s |2 ++ 4 files

[Openocd-development] [PATCH] contrib cfi loader src

[PATCH 1/2] contrib: make sure loaders use correct arch [PATCH 2/2] contrib: add source to the cfi flash loaders ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] contrib cfi loader src

Spencer Oliver wrote: [PATCH 1/2] contrib: make sure loaders use correct arch [PATCH 2/2] contrib: add source to the cfi flash loaders Acked-by: Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Paul Richards paulr...@gmail.com wrote: On 2010/12/10 18:46, Spencer Oliver wrote: Not looked into it but why do we not just duplicate the existing unregister event/timer functions - or are they broken aswell? They (the target versions) don't appear to have

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

Andreas Fritiofson wrote: Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-) It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version should follow the behavior of these and only remove the first matching handler. That

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Peter Stuge pe...@stuge.se wrote: Andreas Fritiofson wrote: Now there's 3 versions to choose from :-) It's not too late. The target versions seems nice and readable. And correct, as far as I can see this late hour. I think the jtag version should follow the

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On 2010/12/11 8:20, Andreas Fritiofson wrote: I don't know. But, generally, if I _can_ register the same handler twice, I'd expect each registration to require a separate unregister call. The actual call sites would have to be inspected before changing this behavior, of course. There shouldn't

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

Paul Richards wrote: Peter, note that the double pointers are in the target list function implementations (that would be copied), are you ok with this? Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not going there. Thanks! //Peter

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

On 2010/12/11 13:00, Peter Stuge wrote: Afraid not. The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not going there. Thought as much :-) Well, will leave it up to you guys to decide. I can test any new patches required. Cheers, Paul

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] Fix for segmentation fault from freed memory access in jtag_unregister_event_callback()

Peter Stuge wrote: The alternative is quite straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not going there. Allow me to clarify that; The alternative of rewriting to use no double pointers makes the code much more straightforward, so I would strongly prefer not using any double pointers. :)