Hello Peter!
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Tomek CEDRO wrote:
>> What are the current approaches of independent SWD implementations?
>
> Maybe Simon could also mention something about his USB-to-XXX method
> of doing SWD with the Versaloon.
Thank you for this hint - I was
Tomek CEDRO wrote:
> What are the current approaches of independent SWD implementations?
Maybe Simon could also mention something about his USB-to-XXX method
of doing SWD with the Versaloon.
//Peter
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-developm
Micha,
Michael Krivoruchko wrote:
> > the official position of the maintainers is that we want a
> > maintainable, documented SWD implementation or none at all.
>
> "The official position of the maintainers" was not in place during
> basic JTAG functionality development. I guess, only because of
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>
> the official position of the maintainers is that we want a maintainable,
> documented SWD implementation or none at all.
>
"The official position of the maintainers" was not in place during basic JTAG
functionality development. I guess
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,
/>>/
/>>/ 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
12 matches
Mail list logo
