On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Antonio Borneo <borneo.anto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM <kristof.mul...@telenet.be> wrote: > > > > Hi Antonio, > > > > > I'm really skeptical they would agree to change the license. > > > > Why would they not agree? They sell hardware. If more people can use > their hardware (eg. through OpenOCD), that's better for their sales. > > What you say is true, but choosing a license is part of the business > model of a company. > Personally I don't believe they will change the license just because > of one request from a user. And anyway such change will take ages. > But it's worth trying.. > Actually, if the original post is correct in that the DLL only provides read/write access to memory, I'd say it's definitely not worth it. It will be a crippled implementation (HLA style) which only works for a few select setups and will not behave as OpenOCD does with other adapters. It would be more interesting to implement the USB protocol directly to (presumably) get low-level access to the underlying JTAG/SWD/whatever traffic. Although I'm not sure what the benefit would be compared to just getting one of the already supported adapters. The "fast" speeds according to the chart on their website aren't that impressive and easily surpassed by a high-speed FTDI based adapter, and the additional features like current consumption measurement do not yet have any infrastructure in OpenOCD to easily plug it into. /Andreas
