Hi,
Having a bit of a tidy up and found the src to the various ram loaders i
have written over the years - no objections i will commit.
Cheers
Spen
>From 5c25c2cbec8d4a7966ccb18b8dadbde5da59b4b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Spencer Oliver
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:03:16 +0100
Subject: [PATC
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Spencer Oliver wrote:
>> Having a bit of a tidy up and found the src to the various ram loaders
>> i have written over the years - no objections i will commit.
>
> Acked-by: Peter Stuge
>
> Could they also be magically hooked up to OpenOCD?
I
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> >> Having a bit of a tidy up and found the src to the various ram loaders
> >> i have written over the years - no objections i will commit.
> >
> > Could they also be magically hooked up to OpenOCD?
>
> I think a good start would be to add comments in the
> code where these
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> >> Having a bit of a tidy up and found the src to the various ram loaders
>> >> i have written over the years - no objections i will commit.
>> >
>> > Could they also be magically hooked up to OpenOCD?
>>
>> I think a g
Hi!
Someone has asked me for help with using OpenOCD + STM32F100 (8kB of
RAM). After some time I've come to conclusion that the problem was
caused by incorrect workareasize value, which in stm32.cfg is defined to
be 16kB. With std cfg files flashing the device resulted in:
Error: JTAG-DP ST
On 10/27/2010 10:29 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I actually don't think it is an unreasonable expectation. I know I
>> have not had OpenOCD without the cross toolchain.
>>
>> However, compiling them could be done in make dist, rather than make.
>> (Ie. when preparing a tarball, rather than when compi
> However, I've always thought that OpenOCD somehow finds the amount of RAM
> that is available on the chip and will not allocate more than is possible?
Nope. There is no code in OpenOCD to figure this out.
Perhaps it would be a good idea for some target family scripts
to have some required optio
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Perhaps it would be a good idea for some target family scripts
> to have some required options, such as amount of RAM
> for chip? Perhaps with a default to the minimum possible
> amount of ram.
Makes sense. I think in general it would be nice to tidy a little in
tcl/target/
