On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Lundin <lun...@mlu.mine.nu> wrote: > Řyvind Harboe wrote: >> >> Does anyone have any objections to adding a command >> to disable jtag_check_value_mask()? >> >> This is along the lines of the existing verify_ircapture and >> could speed things up. >> >> Checking would be on by default just like verify_ircapture. >> >> Such a command would serve two purposes(just like >> verify_ircapture): >> >> - measure performance impact of these checks >> - during development when things are stable, it >> could speed things up >> >> > > Is this not exactly the same as the verify_ircapture flag for dr scans, so > it would be verify_drcapture. ? > > Good for me.
If I put the check inside jtag_check_value_mask() today, then the new option would disable verify_ircapture too. Any objections to making having only one "jtag_verify" and do away with verify_ircapture? What makes verify_ircapture special? Why would we want to be able to disable that verification specifically? Are there other verification sites that we would want to disable specifically? I'm kinda leaning towards a single jtag_verify unless someone feels strongly about verify_ircapture specifically... -- Øyvind Harboe Embedded software and hardware consulting services http://consulting.zylin.com _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
