On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 10:41 +0200, Magnus Lundin wrote: > The only reason I can think of for a specic numbering is that it might > optimize the gate design in a hardware implementation of the tap state > engine. But this is not a problem for us so thats OK. If we want to > follow JTAG documentation standards (ARM ane IEEE) in our code then the > state names should also change like: > > TAP_DREXIT2 --> TAP_EXIT2_DR > etc > (this will have a greater impact ... ) > > and finally > > TAP_INVALID is used in the target code to mean "TAP DONT CARE" so > calling it invalid is a bit misleading.
Both of these changes sound reasonable, but I am not eager to make them right this second. I would invite you to submit a subsequent patch. :) [[In terms of increments, this is one step and renaming is another.]] The existing symbols are familiar, but it will not take more than a quick sed to fix them. If you don't want to do it for me, I can put it on The List. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
