On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, David Brownell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 23 October 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> Here is a thought: >> >> Retire arm9 vector_catch C code and write a Tcl >> proc instead on top of "reg vector_catch". >> >> Thoughts? > > Erm ... why? > > Rename "arm9tdmi" to "arm9", sure.
No arm7 supports this? arm926ejs.c does not invoke arm9tdmi_register_commands()... Is it unreasonable to have a common vector_catch syntax across e.g. Cortex, MIPS and ARMx for e.g. data abort? > Bugfix the current code to preserve the user's > setting for that register across resets, sure. Are you sure it's broken? Is this by inspection or testing? There is code in arm7_9_common.c reset to try to restore the vector_catch register after the reset vector has been caught. Ref. embeddedice_write_reg vs. embeddedice_store_reg. embedded_write_reg writes directly to the hardware register, embeddedice_store_reg writes the register cache to the hardware. >> Doesn't targets like arm926ejs have vector_catch registers? > > The current "arm9tdmi vector_catch" works on arm926 > already. As it says at the top of arm9tdmi.c! I can't see that the vector_catch is registered from arm926ejs.c, only arm920.t and arm966e.c -- Øyvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex JTAG debugger and flash programmer _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
