On 12/29/18 2:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 09:20, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@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@gmx.de
v2: 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.
There are better places to apply u-classes, e.g. I am really missing a u-class for file systems.
Best regards
Heinrich
Regards, Simon