oyvind> [make monolithic config files illegal]
laurent> For me, it is a bad idea !
I also dislike it, it is often helpful for debug reasons.
-Duane.
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/ma
One thing that I'd like to see are more target config scripts
being fed back to the community
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware consulting services
http://consulting.zylin.com
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@l
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Why do you prefer to have the interface definition inside such
> config files?
>
It makes perfect sense if the interface is on the same board as the
target, as with many of the USB-dongle style evaluation kits
(STR9-comstick etc.).
> Why would you *not* want the interface
On Monday 08 June 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> How about making it illegal to have the "interface" command
> together with "target"?
I'd say no, on the general principle that such policy
choices should in user hands.
> This would (strongly) encourage target files to be made independant
> of inte
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Why do you prefer to have the interface definition inside such
> config files?
>
> Why would you *not* want the interface config file to come from
> OpenOCD's published configuration files for interaces?
>
>
>
> openocd -f interface/abc.cfg -f customerconfig.cfg
>
>
At th
Why do you prefer to have the interface definition inside such
config files?
Why would you *not* want the interface config file to come from
OpenOCD's published configuration files for interaces?
openocd -f interface/abc.cfg -f customerconfig.cfg
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hard
>
> One thing I see on the net are monolithic config files where
> the configuration of the interface is mixed into the target
> configuration.
>
> How about making it illegal to have the "interface" command
> together with "target"?
>
> This would (strongly) encourage target files to be made indep
One thing I see on the net are monolithic config files where
the configuration of the interface is mixed into the target
configuration.
How about making it illegal to have the "interface" command
together with "target"?
This would (strongly) encourage target files to be made independant
of interf
