From 947a459e188994bf247f3582f18e6cb3eefb217b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrey Smirnov Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:20:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] armv7m: Do not ignore 'value' parameter in armv7m_write_core_reg Ignoring the value parameter in that function makes its code rather misleading. Also the only caller of it, armv7m_restore_context already does the whole "buf_get_u32" conversion business, so using 'value' also removes the waste of doing the conversion twice. Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov Change-Id: I515979c314d9b59ee1065c55b5bb5747c7e93f01 Reviewed-on: http://openocd.zylin.com/2057 Tested-by: jenkins Reviewed-by: Spencer Oliver --- src/target/armv7m.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/target/armv7m.c b/src/target/armv7m.c index 77161398..130504c9 100644 --- a/src/target/armv7m.c +++ b/src/target/armv7m.c @@ -216,24 +216,22 @@ static int armv7m_write_core_reg(struct target *target, struct reg *r, int num, enum arm_mode mode, uint32_t value) { int retval; - uint32_t reg_value; struct arm_reg *armv7m_core_reg; struct armv7m_common *armv7m = target_to_armv7m(target); assert(num < (int)armv7m->arm.core_cache->num_regs); - reg_value = buf_get_u32(armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].value, 0, 32); armv7m_core_reg = armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].arch_info; retval = armv7m->store_core_reg_u32(target, - armv7m_core_reg->num, - reg_value); + armv7m_core_reg->num, + value); if (retval != ERROR_OK) { LOG_ERROR("JTAG failure"); armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].dirty = armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].valid; return ERROR_JTAG_DEVICE_ERROR; } - LOG_DEBUG("write core reg %i value 0x%" PRIx32 "", num, reg_value); + LOG_DEBUG("write core reg %i value 0x%" PRIx32 "", num, value); armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].valid = 1; armv7m->arm.core_cache->reg_list[num].dirty = 0; -- 2.39.5