Jonas Horberg wrote: > Dirk Behme wrote on 2009-09-03 20:17:39: > >> David Brownell wrote: >>> On Monday 31 August 2009, Dirk Behme wrote: >>>> David Brownell wrote: >>>>> On Monday 31 August 2009, Dirk Behme wrote: >>>>>> +jtag_rclk >>>>>> + >>>>> needs digits .. >>>> Hmm, really? Then, jtag_rclk seems to be broken: >>> I think you're right... >> ;) >> >> What's about applying a patch without digits until jtag_rclk is fixed? > > jtag_rclk without a parameter do not request adaptive clocking, it just > returns the present speed setting (jtag_khz do the same). > This is not documented in the OpenOCD User's Guide. > >> Dirk >> >>>> jtag_rclk: >>>> >>>> -- cut -- >>>> RCLK - adaptive > > See above. > >>>> ... >>>> Info : clock speed 6000 kHz > > This output is from the interface init routine. There were actually no > request for RCLK or a specific speed before init, so the default speed > setting is used. > >>>> -- cut -- >>>> >>>> jtag_rclk 3000: >>>> >>>> -- cut -- >>>> RCLK - adaptive > > This really just acknowledge the RCLK request. The interface is not setup > at this stage, so OpenOCD do not know if it supports RCLK. > >>>> ... >>>> Info : RCLK (adaptive clock speed) not supported - fallback to 3000 > kHz > > As far as I know, the Flyswatter is a FT2232D based interface. FT2232D do > not support adaptive clocking, so a fallback to the fixed speed is > expected > and correct.
Thanks for the details :) Just to check if I understand correctly: Flyswatter doesn't seem to support RCLK, so in case of no digits given to jtag_rclk, the default speed is taken. This seems to be 6000 kHz here. So what we most probably want is jtag_rclk 6000 (instead of 3000) to use the default speed in case of no RCLK support? Best regards Dirk _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
