On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Laurent Gauch 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 De
Hi Laurant,
> Great job.
Far from done though. I mainly get zeroes at the moment,
because my chip continues to run. I'm still looking for the
right incantation to make it stop.
> This is true for some specific processors. But wrong for CPLD , FPGA,
> , and some ARM having methods to selec
>>/
/>>/ Hi,
/>>/
/>>/ the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
/>>/ documented SWD implementation or none at all.
/>>/
/>>/ I know David hasn't been able to work on SWD as much as he had
/>>/ planned or hoped.
/>>/
/>/
/>/ Is this your position or really the posit
> Is there already any scheme/design on how SWD should work in OpenOCD?
> Should it imitate JTAG after "swd init" at the highest level?
David Brownell have been working on SWD on and off the last year. I must
confess I'm not up to speed on the status, but I know he has patches that
are not publish
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Laurent Gauch wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
>> documented SWD implementation or none at all.
>>
>> I know David hasn't been able to work on SWD as much as he had
>> planned or hoped.
>>
>
> Is this yo
Hi,
the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
documented SWD implementation or none at all.
I know David hasn't been able to work on SWD as much as he had
planned or hoped.
Is this your position or really the position of all the maintainers ?
Regards,
Laurent
Hello Øyvind! :-)
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
> documented SWD implementation or none at all.
Good approach, totally agree on this! :-) I have just started
http://sourceforge.net/projects/stm32pri
Hi,
the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
documented SWD implementation or none at all.
I know David hasn't been able to work on SWD as much as he had
planned or hoped.
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.z
Hello SerialWireDebuggers! ;-)
>From what I see on other posts, a release might be coming with the end
of the year... if its not the bugfix release 0.4.1, then I thought
that this might be a good occasion to intensify SWD works to make it
work with 0.5.0!
What is the current work status? Who is c
Hello Rick,
Great job.
One comment concerning your note :
+Note that the logic of this procedure will only work if the chip that is being
boarded is
+at rest. The PCB probably provides ways of doing that, not in the last place
by holding
+the system reset signal active by pressing a reset b
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> 0.5-dev is pretty stable now. If someone stepped up to handle the
>> release process we are about due to cut a new release really.
>
> It would be great if SWD support got into the release. OTOH maybe
> that's for the ne
> BTW, I am pleased by the clear structure of the code; good architecturing!
That would be a thanks to Zach who put a huge effort to clean up
the OpenOCD code.
Good to hear you're moving ahead...
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.zylin.com
Hey 0yvind,
You were right in advising me to use git:HEAD.
> I've rebased your patch onto origin/master, attached. The second patch
> are some changes that I made quickly, you'll have to review those changes
> carefully.
Thanks a lot! I added the GPL banner and will check the coding style guide
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> 0.5-dev is pretty stable now. If someone stepped up to handle the
> release process we are about due to cut a new release really.
It would be great if SWD support got into the release. OTOH maybe
that's for the next one.
> Since it's work in progress, I'll hold off on othe
Hello Oyvind,
> OpenOCD 0.4.0 is getting a bit long in the tooth for getting help on this
> list. You'll want to move to the master branch.
OK, I'll setup git. I wanted to get started on stable code, but if things
I'm running into were already resolved in git that's not worth it.
> Also, it cou
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rick van Rein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am writing a generic BSDL interface to support external access
> to Flash and GPIO. This is currently relative to OpenOCD 0.4.0.
OpenOCD 0.4.0 is getting a bit long in the tooth for getting help on this
list. You'll want to move
The following is for your information.
The good thing about this latest release is that it has the
new device filter wizard GUI. Using this GUI, you can
install libusb-win32 filter to a specific USB device
(actually a specific interface of a specific USB device).
For example, if you want to use J
Hello,
I am writing a generic BSDL interface to support external access
to Flash and GPIO. This is currently relative to OpenOCD 0.4.0.
I am using a Turtelizer2 cable to play with a TMS320VC5402 DSP.
I am running into lack of documentation on using the JTAG code:
1. When I tried to use jtag_add
18 matches
Mail list logo
