On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Laurent Gauch <laurent.ga...@amontec.com> wrote: > Yes, you 're right . SWD is not incremental changes since it touch the low > layers of the OpenOCD. > Amontec Team is working on SWD too, and have some first communication > results. But the "How-to" integrate correctly this new Serial Wire Debug > transport layer in the OpenOCD is an other story.
I think this is time to invent/normalize the SWD architecture/design in OpenOCD and send the patches. The work of independent groups may be doubled, results may be similar, missing parts too. If we setup the architecture/design then we can together work on the common code on GIT, adding missing functionalities and testing the whole thing :-) I am not familiar enough with the OpenOCD source code to create such design for SWD, but we can discuss it and achieve the best solution together. Maybe this is good time right now.. so do we want SWD to behave the same way as JTAG? I know the communication method is different, so are the sticky bit and errors reporting, but this could be a matter of lower level functionalities resulting in the same function call for both JTAG and SWD..? What are the current approaches of independent SWD implementations? Best regards, Tomek -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
