From a70e6286200f33f842e14bc2fed027c7b268826c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Megan Wachs Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:23:21 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] riscv-v13: wait for idle in read_memory read_memory was doing autoexec-initialized commands, but wasn't using ac_busy_delay to add delay or wait between the commands. This isn't the optimal solution, but the whole read_memory sequence needs to be made more efficient anyway, so this was the quick and dirty solution. --- src/target/riscv/riscv-013.c | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/target/riscv/riscv-013.c b/src/target/riscv/riscv-013.c index 774e6d35e..6aac4fdda 100644 --- a/src/target/riscv/riscv-013.c +++ b/src/target/riscv/riscv-013.c @@ -1865,7 +1865,7 @@ static int read_memory(struct target *target, uint32_t address, return ERROR_FAIL; } dmi_write(target, DMI_ABSTRACTCS, DMI_ABSTRACTCS_AUTOEXEC0 | DMI_ABSTRACTCS_CMDERR); - + uint32_t abstractcs; for (uint32_t i = 0; i < count; i++) { uint32_t value = dmi_read(target, DMI_DATA0); switch (size) { @@ -1885,9 +1885,16 @@ static int read_memory(struct target *target, uint32_t address, default: return ERROR_FAIL; } - } + // The above dmi_read started an abstract command. If we just + // immediately read here, we'll probably get a busy error. Wait for idle first, + // or otherwise take ac_command_busy into account (this defeats the purpose + // of autoexec, this whole code needs optimization). + if (wait_for_idle(target, &abstractcs) != ERROR_OK) { + return ERROR_FAIL; + } + } dmi_write(target, DMI_ABSTRACTCS, DMI_ABSTRACTCS_CMDERR); - uint32_t abstractcs = dmi_read(target, DMI_ABSTRACTCS); + abstractcs = dmi_read(target, DMI_ABSTRACTCS); if (get_field(abstractcs, DMI_ABSTRACTCS_CMDERR)) { // TODO: retry with more delay? return ERROR_FAIL;