On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
I agree. I'll get to reviewing the patches in depth tonight and hopefully
get them committed.
It would be great to have Magnus Lundin's changes committed too, just
to keep things in sync...
Which ones do you
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Bruck mbr...@digenius.de wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com
wrote:
I agree. I'll get to reviewing the patches in depth tonight and hopefully
get them committed.
It would be great to have Magnus Lundin's
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Bruck mbr...@digenius.de wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com
wrote:
I agree. I'll get to reviewing the patches in depth tonight
Do we have a time frame for that? Can't Magnus split these changes up
into small independent pieces and commit them to the trunk regularly?
This way he can update his working tree from the trunk and get my and
other's commits without everybody's work stalling until he has
finished the whole
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
Do we have a time frame for that? Can't Magnus split these changes up
into small independent pieces and commit them to the trunk regularly?
This way he can update his working tree from the trunk and get my and
Then why not just copy the current trunk to something like
branches/merge-ftd2232-vs-r1809 and then commit the change there so
that it can be tested?
It's even easier than that :-)
jtag.c needs a few tweaks and a bit of testing and it can be committed
first without further ado. It just needs
If you post patches and vouch for them, then I, or another committer
who beats me to it, will commit them promptly.
Currently the problem is that there are patches posted, but nobody
has time to say anything as to whether they are ready for testing.
I think it would be *greatly* helpful if we
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
If you post patches and vouch for them, then I, or another committer
who beats me to it, will commit them promptly.
Currently the problem is that there are patches posted, but nobody
has time to say anything as to
I broke it down as small as possible. The change is trivial. I tested
it here as far as possible. I can't test *all* of the functions as my
target doesn't use them, but again, the rewrite is absolutely trivial.
Did Rick want something *else* or something *more*?
If he wanted something *more*
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Øyvind Harboe oyvind.har...@zylin.com wrote:
I broke it down as small as possible. The change is trivial. I tested
it here as far as possible. I can't test *all* of the functions as my
target doesn't use them, but again, the rewrite is absolutely trivial.
Did
On May 17, 2009, at 1:51 AM, Michael Bruck wrote:
The code in jtag.c currently manipulates the command queue pointers
directly in every function. This increases potential for errors and
makes the code less readable by distracting the reader from the core
algorithm contained in every function.
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
- jtag_command_t **last_cmd;
- last_cmd = jtag_get_last_command_p();
-
- *last_cmd = cmd_queue_alloc(sizeof(jtag_command_t));
- (*last_cmd)-next = NULL;
- last_comand_pointer = ((*last_cmd)-next);
-
On May 17, 2009, at 1:43 PM, David Brownell wrote:
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
- jtag_command_t **last_cmd;
- last_cmd = jtag_get_last_command_p();
-
- *last_cmd = cmd_queue_alloc(sizeof(jtag_command_t));
- (*last_cmd)-next = NULL;
-
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Rick Altherr wrote:
Rather than combine them, I'd like to see jtag_queue_command() enforce
validation of the command to be enqueued. Then the patterns would be:
cmd = cmd_queue_alloc();
cmd-type = JTAG_SCAN;
Then how about passing JTAG_* to the allocator?
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Rick Altherr kc8...@kc8apf.net wrote:
On May 17, 2009, at 1:43 PM, David Brownell wrote:
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
- jtag_command_t **last_cmd;
- last_cmd = jtag_get_last_command_p();
-
- *last_cmd =
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:15 PM, David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net wrote:
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Rick Altherr wrote:
Rather than combine them, I'd like to see jtag_queue_command() enforce
validation of the command to be enqueued. Then the patterns would be:
cmd = cmd_queue_alloc();
On Sunday 17 May 2009, Michael Bruck wrote:
I did not primarily want to compact code but separate layers. The
function wraps the queue manipulation. The data structure
initialization itself is much more code than just the type field so I
don't like the idea of tearing it apart.
I understand.
On May 17, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Michael Bruck wrote:
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Rather than combine them, I'd like to see
18 matches
Mail list logo
