On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Øyvind Harboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > I agree totally with this, I think this would be a *GREAT* idea. > > So what would this mean technically? > I think that would have to evolve. Urjtag is certainly more aimed at logic devices (CPLD, FPGA), and OpenOcd seems more catered to processors, where flash & eeprom chips fall in this continuum remains to be seen, it seems both have some, but perhaps not much, support for memory devices. I find myself using both frequently, as CPLD's are a good compliment to ARM7's. Perhaps some form of cooperation, or maybe all that's needed is a pointer to eachother's documentation to make people aware of the situations when one might be preferred. Seperating the back-end of both projects into libs (i.e. libopenocd & liburjtag) such that either front-end can support the backends cleanly comes to mind. I like the lib approach, as I can envision a front-end that pushes all the scripts into a single command-line for utilizing make variables without creating intermediate files. > > What about the people. Is the culture compatible? > > I haven't seen anything that would make me think otherwise. Urjtag is headed by Kolja Waschk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with alot of help by "Arnim Läuger" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you might drop them a 'hello' note and see where it leads...both projects seem to be very actively developed right now. Best, Steve
_______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
