On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:34 AM, Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.har...@zylin.com> wrote: > Seems like you're on top of it! >> BTW, target_write_memory() and target_write_u32() is not the luckiest >> function name choice, as they have different behaviors... > > Can you prepare a patch that fixes naming and documents > the behaviour? > > This is indeed a source of confusion and you may find bugs in > OpenOCD just going over each invocation. Boring tedious work, > but probably no more than an hour...
Hi Øyvind, Firstly I would like to see if I got all the git branching stuff OK and that I have proper environment to continue working on. If the first pull request passes OK, I will finish my work on more complicated MIPS issue (cache syncronization), and then open discussion about this confusing function naming, so that we can find the best way to handle this naming issue. For now it holds the water, especially when we demystified it a little bit now... BR, Drasko _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
