On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaof...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Spencer Oliver <s...@spen-soft.co.uk> wrote: >> http://openocd.zylin.com/33 adds libusb-1.0 support to the jlink. >> >> Just wondering if anyone had any input on this ? >> > > I believe the approach to only uss libusb-1.0 for J-Link is not a good > approach. My idea is to have both options, just like urjtag. When > libusb-1.0 is available and specified by the user, it should use > libusb-1.0, other wise, it will fall back to libusb-0.1. > > Benefits of providing both: > 1) Make the regression testing easier. > 2) Make J-Link to work on platforms where libusb-1.0 is not > available, like Solaris/NetBSD/OpenBSD, and older version > of FreeBSD, and maybe some embedded Linux platform, and > Windows 2000. > 3) Make users who prefer to use libusb-0.1 can use libusb-0.1, > say Windows users who prefer to keep both Segger driver > (to use IAR/Keil/etc) and OpenOCD -- they can use libusb-win32 > filter driver. Take note libusb-1.0 Windows does not support > libusb0.sys backend now and that makes it not working with > the filter driver. >
Again, I will point the link to urjtag. http://urjtag.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=urjtag/urjtag;a=tree;f=urjtag/src/tap/usbconn;hb=HEAD In terms of the simple wrapper of libusb-1.0, I think this is a good first try. On the other hand, the function jtag_libusb_match() can probably take one more parameter serial_number so that some debuggers can benefits from the support of multiple units. -- Xiaofan _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
