From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18609 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2006 00:59:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 18600 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2006 00:59:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:59:48 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FnPv6-000246-AN for gdb@sourceware.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:59:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB support for flash: implementation Message-ID: <20060606005944.GA7504@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20060605210238.GA1036@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060605210238.GA1036@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 05:02:38PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Jim and I were talking about this earlier and didn't really come to a > conclusion. I don't like Eflash; I think it's unnecessarily > complicated, and that it would actually be simpler to ask the target > to tell us where its flash is. Jim asked me to expand on this. What Eflash would basically do would be return a piece of the target's memory map. So we've always got a little bit of that map when we need it, and there's a temptation to hold on to it and get a better picture of the target as we go along. But that's a bad temptation, because of the incompleteness; so why not sidestep it and build the map up front? Either way, at least in some cases, the map will be incomplete. For instance, it may not indicate where all RAM and I/O devices are. But this way at least we know where all the flash devices are. The target won't come along and surprise us later. Mark asked a related question about writes to flash regions which fail to use the flash-specific packets; in my opinion, and Jim's, the right thing to do is still to return an error. I just don't want the error to convey information needed for the retry. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery