Re: [Openocd-development] working_area and MMUs

[Ø. H. <oyv...@zy...>]

On Feb 18, 2008 7:12 PM, Dominic Rath <Dom...@gm...> wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008 09:08:44 Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > I'd like to see working_area deal with RAM moving after the MMU has
> > been enabled.
> >
> > How about adding an optional argument for a physical address?
> >
> > If the MMU is enabled the virtual address is used, otherwise the
> > phsyical address is used. Default physical address is the same
> > as the virtual address.
> >
> > Note that the virtual address does not need to point to the physical
> > memory area used.
> >
> > Any better ideas? Objections?
>
> I suppose the "clean" approach would be to make OpenOCD's target layer aware
> of virtual memory. Currently, MMU handling is implemented on a per-target
> level, where it is inaccessible to the code deciding where the working_area
> goes.

So no objections or other ideas to the change in syntax &
functionality of working_area from the users point of view?

If there is a consensus on the new syntax/semantics of working_area,
I'll start tinkering with an implementation(target independent).

-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com - eCos ARM & FPGA  developer kit