[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1] cmd: add exception command
xypron.debian at gmx.de
Mon Feb 18 19:38:52 UTC 2019
On 1/5/19 2:56 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heinrich,
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 01:33, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 12/29/18 2:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Heinrich,
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 09:20, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> The 'exception' command allows to test exception handling.
>>>> This implementation supports ARM, x86, RISC-V and the following exceptions:
>>>> * 'breakpoint' - prefetch abort exception (ARM 32bit only)
>>>> * 'unaligned' - data abort exception (ARM only)
>>>> * 'undefined' - undefined instruction exception
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de>
>>>> Split architecture specific code into separate files.
>>>> Provide include for common code.
>>>> Update MAINTAINERS file.
>>>> MAINTAINERS | 3 +++
>>>> cmd/Kconfig | 6 +++++
>>>> cmd/Makefile | 2 ++
>>>> cmd/arm/Makefile | 7 +++++
>>>> cmd/arm/exception.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> cmd/arm/exception64.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> cmd/riscv/Makefile | 3 +++
>>>> cmd/riscv/exception.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> cmd/x86/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> cmd/x86/exception.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/exception.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 11 files changed, 232 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/arm/Makefile
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/arm/exception.c
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/arm/exception64.c
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/riscv/Makefile
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/riscv/exception.c
>>>> create mode 100644 cmd/x86/exception.c
>>>> create mode 100644 include/exception.h
>>> This needs something like Series-version: 2 (if you use patman) to set
>>> the version number in the header.
>> Sorry for the mishap.
>>> Did you look at using a uclass and driver, like sysreset?
>> Yes I have considered using a u-class. But I could not see how adding a
>> separate u-class file would save lines, make the coding less complex, or
>> make the coding easier to maintain. A u-class would make sense if there
>> were other consumers for exceptions but the exception command. But I
>> cannot imagine any.
> In some sense driver model matches consumers and producers. There are
> clearly multiple producers - you have effectively implemented an API
> in a few places. We even have multiple impls for each arch.
> So I still favour a uclass, but since you are pretty adamant that we
> should not do it, I'm not going to insist.
in patchwork this patch is still in status 'NEW'.
It is unclear to me if you are going to merge it as is or if I should
>> There are better places to apply u-classes, e.g. I am really missing a
>> u-class for file systems.
>> Best regards
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
More information about the U-Boot