> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 09:30 -0700, David Brownell wrote: >> On Wednesday 15 July 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> > It builds and I hope I resolved the few conflicts correctly. Not >> > tested on Cortex M3 or A8. >> >> Hmm, could you maybe split this into two patches, more like what >> Magnus did? #1 to move the DAP stuff from V7M support to ADIv5. >> The other adding lots of A8 stuff. >> >> That would make it easier to review, also make the revision history >> more comprehensible. > > Here is a longer list of issues: > - Split into more discrete changes: > - One change per patch; his original post was better in this. > - One patch per post; the original post feel short here. > - Include commit messages that describe the changes in each patch. > - Fix minor whitespace style problems: > - Missing spaces before/after operator > - Wrap long lines at less than 80 columns. > - Remove all dead code: > - Commented code and #if 0 blocks show the code is not finished. > - Extended the documentation (in further patches from the series): > - New commands were added: document their syntax and usage > - Add a NEWS blurb; update TODO. > - There may be other information to add about Cortex A8. > - Patch does not show svn:eol-style native properties. > > I think Magnus needs to polish, split, and resubmit this patch (once he > gets back from his vacation). First, it's his code. More importantly, > every developer needs to learn how to produce, update, and revise their > own patches in order to meet high standards of quality. This holds for > any non-trivial open source community, not just OpenOCD. > > I loath the idea of asking others to fix code of an active developer. > If I were to "finish" these patches, I would end up taking over enough > momentum of the code to manage its forward motion. I expect anyone > else with such initiative to feel a similar entitlement to do so, and > such efforts would mean that it ceases to be "his" patches to manage. > To me, this sounds like a rude thing to do, since he did not abandon > those bits to the community's care. While we have provided the > community with a patch that will apply against the trunk HEAD, that > should be sufficient to enable him to finish the rest of the work. > > In the meantime, this patch should be used for testing only, and not > committed without more work. However, I agree it may get better testing > by being split up again, similar to how they were initially presented. > > Cheers, > > Zach >
Hi list, I will not do any more work on these patches in the near future. I know that there is a lot of work to be done before they are up to standard, but I have been asked to submit the work I have done so far, anyway. So I give this to the community to improve. Hopefully the experiments I have done with the Beagleboard and my analysis of how Cortex-A8 relates to other ARM subsystems in OpenOCD can be useful as a basis for a future full and clean Cortex-A8 subsystem. So I have full understanding if somebody does a major rework or if somebody decides to write another implementation. But the patches as they stand actually makes it possible to do basic debugging of Cortex-A8 systems (Beagleboard) and some members of the community have expressed interest in this well aware of the limitations in the present code. I hope this project has not lost the facility to work on and collectively improve incomplete subsystems. So as an old teacher I can only say that I wish the Cortex-A8 code all future success, in whatever form it will transform into after meeting with the community. This is not abandoning, it is setting free to allow future growth. Have a nice summer. Best regards Magnus _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
