On Monday 01 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Why not remove -endstate and always use DR/IRPAUSE > respectively? > > > ... all that said, my question stands: does it make > > sense to support anything other than IDLE, DRPAUSE, and > > IRPAUSE for the current "-endstate" param value? > > IMHO, no. > > (I was confusing SHIFTDR and DRPAUSE in previous post...)
Yeah, SHIFTDR would be a *really* bad state to be in when exiting "drscan"! Similarly SHIFTIR/"irscan". ;) > > I'd like to fix the "random endstate" issue before 0.2, and > > maybe verify for drscan verify that only one TAP is out of > > bypass. But for the other points, probably post-0.2 is fine. > > I love it that you call it "random endstate" which is essentially > my objection to jtag_add_end_state() in the first place. It just > makes the endstate more or less random :-) Yeah, unpredictability is ungood ... I'm not going to comment on your proposal about the C versions of the JTAG calls, since I don't really know how they're used. It does however make sense to me that developers say what the endstate should be, as part of queueing an operation. Expecting "someone else" to choose that is error prone. That might be one of the points you were making. The mechanism for saying what that state should be is just a bit beyond my level of familiarity with that code ... "always explicit" has clear advantages, but then so might "default RUN/IDLE, override anything else". ;) - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
