On 09/06/15 21:49, Vladimir Prus wrote:
It's a bit more generic - it means that to obtain values of any register
in this group, GDB should perform qXfer of the specified target object
and annex, using register's offset. Memory is the most typical target
object,
but in our case, we had other sorts of registers, so I'd prefer the
design to
not lock us into memory-mapped registers.
I don't object to it.
Does "offset=0x4000e030" mean this register is mapped
at address 0x4000e030? If the answers of both questions are yes, is
target-object="memory" still necessary? Without it, we can still define
a group of memory-mapped registers like:
<group name="io">
<reg offset="0x4000e030" name="UART1_1">
<reg offset="0x4000e034" name="UART1_2">
<reg offset="0x4000e038" name="UART1_3">
</group>
and we may even can define a group of normal registers and memory-mapped
registers, (even it is not likely in practise)
<group name="io">
<reg offset="0x4000e030" name="UART1_1">
<reg offset="0x4000e034" name="UART1_2">
<reg name="UART1_3">
</group>
In this case, UART1_1 and UART1_2 are memory-mapped, while UART1_3 is
not. IMO, memory-map-ness is an attribute of each register instead of a
group, so better to define such attribute on each register level.
It is possible in theory, but I think it has two drawbacks.
First, I think specifying target object is more explicit (and therefore
better
than implicit, especially for machine-oriented format) and more generic,
as it allows
us to use other target objects.
Second, implementing such mixed registers group is extra complexity, and
we did
not find any need for that in practice.
If such mixed registers group brings extra complexity in the
implementation, then I am inclined to start from a simple one.