On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Andrew Leech <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Jon Povey <[email protected]> wrote: >> Andrew Leech wrote: >>> On 06/01/2011, at 3:12 PM, Jon Povey wrote: >> >>>> Ping. >>> >>> I never delved much into the actual SVF commands, so can't >>> comment on the basic logic of it, however if the new >>> functionality is correct the old stuff blocked out by #if 1/0 >>> should be removed before committing upstream as it's just dead code >>> and messy. >> >> I didn't know why that was in there. If someone knows it should be removed I >> think that should be a separate patch. >> >>> Unfortunately I can't check that your updated version works >>> on my (actel) hardware for at least another week or so at >>> this rate, but if the logic's right I can't see why it wouldn't be >>> fine. >> >> OK, just trying not to let it get forgotten. >> Can you think of anyone else I should look for an ACK from before getting >> Oyvind to pull his itchy merge trigger finger? :) >> > > Ah, I assumed it was part of your changes. In that case it would be > another patch, not for this one. > I don't know if there's anyone else around to chime in, when I was > adding my stuff a couple of months ago there wan't many other > commentators, Peter Stuge gave a lot of assistance but it was more to > do with good coding style and logical layout rather than the actual > svf handling. SVF really is a rarely touched module from what I can > tell. >
For what its worth I just reprogrammed my actel FPGA just fine with your svf_implement_sleep_for_RUNTEST_min_time patch compiled in, so you've got no complaints from me. Andrew _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
