On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> > These would be methods in the armv4_5 struct yes? The thing > >> > that should be core-ARM-for-everything-except-Cortex-M? > >> > >> No. They go into the target->type. > > > > But not all processors are ARMs... > > That's not a problem as such. If we had C++ we would simplify define > a mrc/mcr interface and each target would either implement it or not.
There are two separate issues here. One is how to associate methods with a target; today's approach uses C, and using C++ would just be an alternative to that. The other issue is the command language. What you've checked in provides mrc/mcr commands for *every* core regardless of whether or not a core supporting them is even present. > I'm not going to hold mcr/mrc hostage to arm11 C interface > abstraction cleanup or somesuch. With the current changes > committed, it will be a tiny matter to push the mcr/mrc back up > to an arm specific interface once that separate issue has > been resolved. I would rather have held off on that stuff till after 0.3.0 is released, myself; right now the doc and the code are out of sync, and it would have been nicer to just have one change. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
