On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:30 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Zach Welch<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 09:19 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> Committed. > >> > >> Does OMAP/BeagleBoard need this? > >> > >> This "pathmove" command is ready for testing & feedback. > >> I've done some quick smoketests and it reveals some interesting > >> points in terms of where error checking should go... Discussed > >> yesterday. > > > > Cool. Except that -- for all its error checking -- it does not catch > > all of the possible errors. Specifically, jtag_add_statemove and > > jtag_add_pathmove both can set jtag_error (without returning an error > > directly). > > which jtag_execute_queue() catches.
Nuts, I forgot about that case. > jtag_execute_queue() has two purposes: > > - execute queued commands(if the minidriver is asynchronous) > - report any errors accrued during synchronous minidriver execution > > > > > Personally, I think jtag_error should be removed, and all routines pass > > back an error code. If those values needs to be "carried forward" to be > > reported in the right place, then they should be stored in whatever > > structure must be carried forward. As it is, the jtag_error code is > > _never_ checked by callers, while return codes are checked religiously. > > Today, removing it would have no effect other than to simplify the code. > > Here be dragons! :-) Windmills. There are no such things as dragons. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
