On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.har...@zylin.com> wrote: > it's great that your focusing on functionality. Cracking the > technical problems and making a patch series that's right > for OpenOCD are two hard problems. Perhaps better > attack one at the time?
exactly. producing smaller patches only complicates things... > One hard thing about SWD is to crack the technical problems, > the other hard thing is to create a series of patches where > as many as possible of the list are able to follow what was > done to OpenOCD. This is crucial as otherwise you would > be the only one able to modify the code, at which point the > value of your patches would drop sharply. no fear! i have commented my changes and code inside even doxygen style so there is nothing hard to understand - changes are clean, does not complicate existing code and the code is self explanatory and commeted where necessary, as they should be :-) the problem itself with understanding program flow or function operation may be the whole program issue, not only my changes, as it took me few months to get familiar with the code.. and i think it should be reorganized.. but as you said - one thing at time - after we make swd working, maybe there is time for code cleanup and refactorization (ie. fix program flow, move globals into common context passed as function parameter, etc) :-) if you prefer so, okay we can work on my fork for the moment swd if operational, then i produce best patches possible, now i know how to do this :-) Best regards! :-) Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
