The array is partially initialized with buf_set_u32(,5,32,), then
the rest of the array is read from SWD.
But scan-build report the array to have garbage content after the
initialization, due to the offset of 5 bit that only inits part of
the first byte.
Silence the false positive from scan-build by initializing the
array.
Change-Id: Ic38d50280f67939e3ec5fa05741f66d5f993f8c2
Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/7013
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
While scan-build complains that dap_p or ap_num_p could be NULL,
the current code never passes NULL pointers.
Add an assert() to silent scan-build and prevent any further use
of the function with incorrect parameters.
Change-Id: I656810dddcea61e85d85b13efb114f7607ef837c
Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/7012
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
Commit d01b3d69ec ("arm_adi_v5: separate ROM table parsing from
command output [3/3]") introduces a new scan-build warning because
removing one return in case of error causes using uninitialized
values.
Add back the return on error.
Change-Id: I10ddc548b756d34aaccc0511f091b4caa5ec271a
Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Fixes: d01b3d69ec ("arm_adi_v5: separate ROM table parsing from command output [3/3]")
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/7011
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
Commit 21f7885d1c ("arm_adi_v5: separate ROM table parsing from
command output [1/3]") introduces a new scan-build warning because
continues the execution even when dap_get_debugbase() returns
error. The value of 'apid' can be uninitialized:
5th function call argument is an uninitialized value
Check the return value and quit on error.
While there, remove the useless initialization of 'dbgbase' that
was apparently required for the same problem.
Change-Id: Iade26a152925ee0f1bf114ed829b94f7ed5b254f
Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Fixes: 21f7885d1c ("arm_adi_v5: separate ROM table parsing from command output [1/3]")
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/7010
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
target_to_armv7m() just returns a type-cast of target->arch_info,
so the test has no value.
Following target_run_algorithm() checks magic number so
we need not worry about execution on mismatched architecture.
Change-Id: Ic9892a488a42af1d8e8731eddb39240deeb26020
Signed-off-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6755
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Error: Uninitialised value was created by a heap allocation
at telnet_new_connection (telnet_server.c:227)
Signed-off-by: Erhan Kurubas <erhan.kurubas@espressif.com>
Change-Id: I698a3648be698c93a2395a718ee1ade028226995
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/7006
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
fix "Declared variable-length array (VLA) has zero size" warnings
while at there instrument the probe function to ensure the flash bank
contains at least 1 sector
Change-Id: I3ba0e6345881557ad1aab2d1b41eee438b49fe04
Signed-off-by: Tarek BOCHKATI <tarek.bouchkati@gmail.com>
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6470
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
The command 'flash erase_check' showed the message
'Running slow fallback erase check - add working memory'
even in the case the target didn't implement blank_check_memory.
Change return code of target_blank_check_memory() in this case
and sense it in default_flash_blank_check() and show a message
without a request for working memory.
Change-Id: I7cf9bf77742964b4f377c9ce48ca689e57d0882f
Signed-off-by: Tomas Vanek <vanekt@fbl.cz>
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6765
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Tim Newsome <tim@sifive.com>
This helps e.g. if there are 8 cores, and cores 0--3 are in one SMP
group while 4--7 are in another group. (And there are 2 gdb instances
connected, one debugging the first group, and one the second.)
Signed-off-by: Tim Newsome <tim@sifive.com>
Change-Id: I7b6c9382eadf964529105eaf0411a42d48768668
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6979
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
The LS1028A is similar to the LS1088A, except that it has 2 CPUs (and
different ethernet capabilities). From a JTAG perspective, all that's
different is the number of CPUs and the TAPID.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
Change-Id: Iba3a0ecfbf82cfcfeb7eea42d52121c3b9dc93a2
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6976
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
Several Layerscape processors (LS1088A, LS2088A, LS2160A, and LS1028A)
share a common architecture. Break out the common setup from the LS1088
config in preparation for adding the LS1028A. There's no official name
for this series of processors, but NXP refers to them as "chassis
generation 3" in U-Boot, so we'll go with that too.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
Change-Id: Ic6f89f95c678101f54579bcaa5d79c5b67ddf50a
Reviewed-on: https://review.openocd.org/c/openocd/+/6975
Tested-by: jenkins
Reviewed-by: Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>
