Michael Schwingen pisze: > Freddie Chopin wrote: >> 2. Modular OpenOCD which would allow binary "drivers" to be used (just >> as the drivers are used in Linux kernel) > What kind of module interface do you envision that would avoid the > problems which we currently have with the FTD2XX library?
This idea is identical to the "tcp/ip idea", just without that [; There would be a "Generic JTAG ABI" defined, with some functions like reset(), write(), read(), identify(), do_sth() etc. The user would provide the library (.dll on windows) and run OpenOCD with parameters to use that file. Or OpenOCD may scan for files. Or whatever. The library handles the interface between JTAG and OpenOCD. Actually with clever implementation such a library could be used with "tcp/ip idea" - the library would not be loaded by OpenOCD but by some sotware that would work as a tcp/ip <-> library bridge. I'm not the first one to suggest such idea (modularity, drivers, ...) on this list. > The drivers would have to run in a separate process space, which means You are going to check the process spaces on every single PC that is on this planet? Can we please stop this extremism? > Note: Linux kernel modules need to be GPL, too - the only way to have > non-GPL drivers in Linux is to have userspace drivers, which are quite > limited in capabilities. Tell that to NVIDIA then [; Anyway - the "tcp/ip idea" is maily the same - the only problem is that user has to have another program which has to be running, with more configuration options and more potential problems for end-user. The "driver" idea just skips the "network" part. 4\/3!! _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
