Jan Matyas
Jan Matyas
Hello @pdonahue-ventana - I have checked `.github/workflows/verify.yml` and it is correct and consistent with the updated Readme. Still, I have slightly expanded the build instructions in Readme to provide a...
@rtwfroody @pdonahue-ventana Could this PR be merged, please? Thank you.
@pdonahue-ventana Gentle ping, could this PR be merged, please?
> en-sc: this does not matter since (...) cmderr field description states: > > This field only contains a valid value if busy is 0. @en-sc Thank you for pointing...
Hi @en-sc I agree that the name `-coreid` is misleading in case of RISC-V. > By default hartid can be assigned based on target index. I am not sure I...
> Where would the hard index be taken from if -coreid is removed? > > From the order the targets are created in I'd strongly prefer to not have implicitly...
> me: To not change the behavior: now omitted hart ID means fixed 0, after the change the omitted hart ID would behave very differently > > en-sc: This is...
I have checked the change in select_dmi() visually and it looks all right to me. It is equivalent to what majority (or all?) other targets do. I can see this...
It sounds like a reasonable fix would be to: - Keep track of watchpoint --> trigger slot mapping in `target->watchpoints` or similar data structure. - This is already in `trigger_unique_id`...
As for `master` vs. `riscv` - I'd recommend to keep the current state - to retain `riscv` as the main branch where the development takes place. The reason is that...