On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:32 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> [snip]
>> There seems to be no strong reason that OpenOCD should
>> always need to be told "here's the only scan chain you
>> should expect to use" ... when it could instead just
>> loo
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 08:02 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > + Which do we want: or ? **
>
> since there are other jtag projects
> working to provide a library interface (e.g. urjtag).
I grok and agree. That said, I think that such would require so
On May 12, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:21 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
[snip]
I had mentioned this a while back. I've been thinking through the
approach and I'm slowly settling on a C++ implementation that would
essentially be a rewrite. That said, I believe an
On May 12, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:32 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
[snip]
There seems to be no strong reason that OpenOCD should
always need to be told "here's the only scan chain you
should expect to use" ... when it could instead just
look at the scan cha
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 17:21 -0700, Rick Altherr wrote:
[snip]
> I had mentioned this a while back. I've been thinking through the
> approach and I'm slowly settling on a C++ implementation that would
> essentially be a rewrite. That said, I believe an autoconfig
> mechanism could be done on
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:49 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:32 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > There seems to be no strong reason that OpenOCD should
> > > always need to be told "here's the only scan chain you
> >
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:32 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> [snip]
> > There seems to be no strong reason that OpenOCD should
> > always need to be told "here's the only scan chain you
> > should expect to use" ... when it could instead just
> > look at th
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 10:32 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
[snip]
> There seems to be no strong reason that OpenOCD should
> always need to be told "here's the only scan chain you
> should expect to use" ... when it could instead just
> look at the scan chain it finds, then autoconfigure, in
> common
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Another thing I'd like to see is JTAG over TCP/IP. OpenOCD
> would implement a TCP/IP server & TCP/IP interface...
>
> That may seem like a non-sequitor but JTAG over TCP/IP *is*
> another interface to OpenOCD which this thread is about. Or?
JTAG ove
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:15 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Could we make an interface driver in OpenOCD that would
>> be able to use the urjtag device layer?
>
> I had similar thoughts. I thought folk more expert in
> JTAG would be better to explore s
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Could we make an interface driver in OpenOCD that would
> be able to use the urjtag device layer?
I had similar thoughts. I thought folk more expert in
JTAG would be better to explore such things. There's
this Øyvind guy at your company, for example
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I think we should be extremely careful about defining public interfaces.
>
> Especially since the JTAG API still (yes still! the hard bits are done
> though) needs work & cleanup.
>
> As an old colleague of mine(Mike Sinz) said: “Programmin
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
>> I think we should be extremely careful about defining public interfaces.
>
> "Defining" is less of an issue than "committing to"... :)
>
>
>> Especially since the JTAG API still (yes still! the
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I think we should be extremely careful about defining public interfaces.
"Defining" is less of an issue than "committing to"... :)
> Especially since the JTAG API still (yes still! the hard bits are done
> though) needs work & cleanup.
Again I'll m
I think we should be extremely careful about defining public interfaces.
Especially since the JTAG API still (yes still! the hard bits are done
though) needs work & cleanup.
As an old colleague of mine(Mike Sinz) said: “Programming is
like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest
On Tuesday 12 May 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
> + Which do we want: or ? **
since there are other jtag projects
working to provide a library interface (e.g. urjtag).
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://l
Hi all,
Despite what it may seem, my recent changes to clean up the header files
were not superficial. They are part of a strategy to create a version
of libopenocd that can be considered stable enough for production
development of high-level applications (e.g. custom GUIs).
Since I have hit t
17 matches
Mail list logo
