From 8290a05c2b3284e3820fc95a10c1cc189f1c186f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: zwelch <zwelch@b42882b7-edfa-0310-969c-e2dbd0fdcd60>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:58:28 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Simplify jtag_add_sleep: - Add todo for removing keep_alive:
is this a layering violation? - Use jtag_set_error instead of accessing
jtag_error directly. - Remove superfluous retval temporary variable and empty
return.
git-svn-id: svn://svn.berlios.de/openocd/trunk@2127 b42882b7-edfa-0310-969c-e2dbd0fdcd60
---
src/jtag/jtag.c | 8 +++-----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/jtag/jtag.c b/src/jtag/jtag.c
index f53bd26cf..efc68f3d9 100644
--- a/src/jtag/jtag.c
+++ b/src/jtag/jtag.c
@@ -783,11 +783,9 @@ tap_state_t jtag_get_end_state(void)
void jtag_add_sleep(u32 us)
{
- keep_alive(); /* we might be running on a very slow JTAG clk */
- int retval=interface_jtag_add_sleep(us);
- if (retval!=ERROR_OK)
- jtag_error=retval;
- return;
+ /// @todo Here, keep_alive() appears to be a layering violation!!!
+ keep_alive();
+ jtag_set_error(interface_jtag_add_sleep(us));
}
int jtag_check_value_inner(u8 *captured, u8 *in_check_value, u8 *in_check_mask, int num_bits)
--
GitLab