On Monday 13 December 2010 10:00:05 Jon Masters wrote: > On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 09:45 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday 13 December 2010 03:27:17 Jon Masters wrote: > > > Some logic is added to detect CPU cores that report an incorrect ARM > > > DAP (Debug Access Port, exposed behind something called an ICEPick > > > which sits on the JTAG chain and allows devices to come and go - I'm > > > still figuring all of this out in the case of the Cortex parts). The > > > problem is that the iMX51 actually *DOES* correctly report the > > > location of its DAP and so does not need to be fixed up! As Antonio > > > points out, the simple fix is to comment out the following loop in > > > > > src/target/arm_adi_v5.c (reformatted for reading): > > If it *DOES* report it correctly, why do they have erratum ENGcm09395 > > then ? But I assume you tested it on imx51 and it was reported correctly > > ? > > > > Beagleboard isn't imx51 just fyi. > > Sorry, you're right. I spent too long reading the OpenOCD source and > seeing the IMX51 Freescale references in the broken_cpus array, and then > it was late... Yea, I'm using the DM3730 TI processor in the > BeagleBoard-xM here, which is being picked up by your logic in that loop > incorrectly and a fixup is being applied that should not be applied. > > <snip commented out code fixup> > > > This is bogus ... I'd prefer extending the detection to be able to > > identify imx51 in a more precise way. > > Sure. I was just applying a hack in my local git branch for running the > BeagleBoard-xM here with my Flyswatter. That was neither a patch nor > intended for use other than with the xM if someone else is using a > release of OpenOCD since the beginning of November. I really agree with > you that the correct fix is to better determine an IMX51 for fixup. > > FWIW, I got this wrong at first. I read the archives and assumed that > the BeagleBoard was in need of some fixup, but actually it's fine. It's > the logic intended to fixup the other part that is breaking Beagle.
Can you try checking how can that be fixed ? I believe it'd just be a matter of adding a few more identification information (check how the fixup loop detects the CPU, try extending it so it doesn't break beagle). > > Oh, and hey, thanks for the followup. > > Jon. _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
