On 01/25/2012 06:54 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> W dniu 2012-01-24 22:36, Andreas Fritiofson pisze:
>> It's fairly simple to replace the few instructions in stm32f1x.S that
>> are unavailable on the M0, with their equivalent multi-instruction
>> sequence. In fact I just did this, will try flashing the M3 and post to
>> gerrit soon if it works. I also caught a small bug in my assembler code,
>> so I had to fix that anyway. The performance penalty of limiting the
>> stm32f1x flash loader to M0 instructions should be insignificant.
> I don't think that is a good idea? Why Cortex-M0 could not have it's own
> loader?
Why maintain two separate loader versions if they are quite similar, and 
the M0-Loader will work on M3 systems?

Having separate, nearly duplicate code is only warranted if there is 
some real performance gain from this.

cu
Michael


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
OpenOCD-devel mailing list
OpenOCD-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel

Reply via email to