On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Dick Hollenbeck <d...@softplc.com> wrote: > Michael, > >> 1. The underlaying jtag_* layer should produce the same transitions >> regardless of the JTAG device. Is there a technical reason why that is >> not possible? > > Not that I am aware of. > >> The ARM11 driver is certainly programmed with that >> assumption in mind. >> >> I don't think the tap_get_tms_path() is a usable solution, > > It *is* usable solution, but to a problem other than what you are thinking > about. Trust me, I would not have spent two days on this otherwise.
Ok, I misunderstood the purpose here. > jtag_add_pathmove() is at the level of your ARM concerns, and can be used > with confidence in my opinion. We need to remove the comment in the jtag.h > that says "please don't use this function". Yes, I too think pathmove used alone is safe. What seems to produce varying results are (combinations of) the complex functions like jtag_add_ir_scan. Some context of the discussion got lost here because it went via PM. If I understood Øyvind's conclusion correctly he thinks that the reason why arm11 doesn't run on *some* jtag interfaces is because they produce different intermediate states in these jtag_* calls. I read between the lines that his conclusion was more pathmoves while I would advocate for a jtag_* interface that produces consistent/well-defined results on all hardware and *then* adding pathmoves if they are still needed. So my question would be: does anyone know if the drivers produce different state transitions (except for idling on stable states) for the jtag_* calls, including more complex stuff that involves jtag_add_ir_scan etc. ? Sorry for the thread hijack. Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
