Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On 21/06/2011, at 3:59 PM, Laurent Gauch wrote: On 21/06/2011, at 1:07 AM, Laurent Gauch wrote: / // / On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // On 20/06/2011, at 8:54 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: // // // On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // Instead, just produce a warning // // // Why? // // // It merits a comment at least? // // // Seems self-evident to me. // // Why should it be fatal just because a value couldn't be read? // // Doesn't stop anything from working. // // // Why should we support broken hardware or drivers? // // // Better the user is told to toss his busted dongle / hardware than to tangle // // with subtle followon errors? // / // Nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem with the driver. // See http://www.mail-archive.com/openocd-development@lists.berlios.de/msg15945.html // // / / // Objection ! // // If we cannot read this value back, this means we reach trouble with driver or device somewhere. // Also, this trouble could affect following access ... // This is why we stop with fatal error. / OK. So what alternative solution would you suggest to make this driver work? What version of the driver do you use. If it really come from the driver and if this is the last official driver, then ask the writer of the driver to correct. If no correction are done quickly by the writer of the driver, then yes, you may just produce a warning. http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/D2XX.htm Latest version, 1.0.4. Same behaviour on both MacOSX and Linux. Sure. I'll ask if they would like to fix this problem. I will let you know what useful response I get. Cheers, Steve -- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: ste...@workware.net.au F: +61 7 3391 6002 ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
Steve Bennett wrote: On 21/06/2011, at 3:59 PM, Laurent Gauch wrote: On 21/06/2011, at 1:07 AM, Laurent Gauch wrote: / // / On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // On 20/06/2011, at 8:54 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: // // // On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // Instead, just produce a warning // // // Why? // // // It merits a comment at least? // // // Seems self-evident to me. // // Why should it be fatal just because a value couldn't be read? // // Doesn't stop anything from working. // // // Why should we support broken hardware or drivers? // // // Better the user is told to toss his busted dongle / hardware than to tangle // // with subtle followon errors? // / // Nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem with the driver. // See http://www.mail-archive.com/openocd-development@lists.berlios.de/msg15945.html // // / / // Objection ! // // If we cannot read this value back, this means we reach trouble with driver or device somewhere. // Also, this trouble could affect following access ... // This is why we stop with fatal error. / OK. So what alternative solution would you suggest to make this driver work? What version of the driver do you use. If it really come from the driver and if this is the last official driver, then ask the writer of the driver to correct. If no correction are done quickly by the writer of the driver, then yes, you may just produce a warning. http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/D2XX.htm Latest version, 1.0.4. Same behaviour on both MacOSX and Linux. Sure. I'll ask if they would like to fix this problem. I will let you know what useful response I get. Great. But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. Regards, Laurent Gauch http://www.amontec.com Cheers, Steve -- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: ste...@workware.net.au F: +61 7 3391 6002 ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On 21/06/2011, at 4:45 PM, Laurent Gauch wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: On 21/06/2011, at 3:59 PM, Laurent Gauch wrote: On 21/06/2011, at 1:07 AM, Laurent Gauch wrote: / // / On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // On 20/06/2011, at 8:54 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: // // // On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // // Instead, just produce a warning // // // Why? // // // It merits a comment at least? // // // Seems self-evident to me. // // Why should it be fatal just because a value couldn't be read? // // Doesn't stop anything from working. // // // Why should we support broken hardware or drivers? // // // Better the user is told to toss his busted dongle / hardware than to tangle // // with subtle followon errors? // / // Nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem with the driver. // See http://www.mail-archive.com/openocd-development@lists.berlios.de/msg15945.html // // / / // Objection ! // // If we cannot read this value back, this means we reach trouble with driver or device somewhere. // Also, this trouble could affect following access ... // This is why we stop with fatal error. / OK. So what alternative solution would you suggest to make this driver work? What version of the driver do you use. If it really come from the driver and if this is the last official driver, then ask the writer of the driver to correct. If no correction are done quickly by the writer of the driver, then yes, you may just produce a warning. http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/D2XX.htm Latest version, 1.0.4. Same behaviour on both MacOSX and Linux. Sure. I'll ask if they would like to fix this problem. I will let you know what useful response I get. Great. But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. Yes. I am using the static library of libftd2xx which includes libusb. (openocd does not build with the shared library) Cheers, Steve -- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: ste...@workware.net.au F: +61 7 3391 6002 ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Laurent Gauch laurent.ga...@amontec.com wrote: Latest version, 1.0.4. Same behaviour on both MacOSX and Linux. Sure. I'll ask if they would like to fix this problem. I will let you know what useful response I get. Great. But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. This has been discussed before and I think in this case an exception should be granted and the patch should be accepted. Thread: http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018422.html I was suggesting the user to use the open source libftdi and libftdi-1.0 under Linux instead but D2XX might still have some benefits so that users may still want to use it. -- Xiaofan ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote: But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. This has been discussed before and I think in this case an exception should be granted and the patch should be accepted. Thread: http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018422.html I was suggesting the user to use the open source libftdi and libftdi-1.0 under Linux instead but D2XX might still have some benefits so that users may still want to use it. It is a long thread but I was able to reproduce the error. http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018434.html I think the latest d2xx library needs some fix from the OpenOCD side or from the d2xx side. It is more difficult to ask FTDI for a fix so it may better to fix this from OpenOCD side. Therefore I think the patch should be accepted. When FTDI fixes D2xx, then probably the patch can be reverted. -- Xiaofan ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On 21/06/2011, at 5:01 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote: But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. This has been discussed before and I think in this case an exception should be granted and the patch should be accepted. Thread: http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018422.html I was suggesting the user to use the open source libftdi and libftdi-1.0 under Linux instead but D2XX might still have some benefits so that users may still want to use it. It is a long thread but I was able to reproduce the error. http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018434.html I think the latest d2xx library needs some fix from the OpenOCD side or from the d2xx side. It is more difficult to ask FTDI for a fix so it may better to fix this from OpenOCD side. Therefore I think the patch should be accepted. When FTDI fixes D2xx, then probably the patch can be reverted. I have reported the problem to FTDI, but in my experience we can not expect a response soon, if ever. I think there are two options, either apply the patch as a workaround (note that the returned value is *never* used), or remove support for D2XX. Cheers, Steve -- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: ste...@workware.net.au F: +61 7 3391 6002 ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
Xiaofan Chen wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Xiaofan Chen xiaof...@gmail.com wrote: But are you sure to have the correct libusb version. On linux and mac, the libusb is the kernel driver for the d2xx. This has been discussed before and I think in this case an exception should be granted and the patch should be accepted. Thread: http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018422.html I was suggesting the user to use the open source libftdi and libftdi-1.0 under Linux instead but D2XX might still have some benefits so that users may still want to use it. It is a long thread but I was able to reproduce the error. http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2011-March/018434.html I think the latest d2xx library needs some fix from the OpenOCD side or from the d2xx side. It is more difficult to ask FTDI for a fix so it may better to fix this from OpenOCD side. Therefore I think the patch should be accepted. When FTDI fixes D2xx, then probably the patch can be reverted. Yes, right. I revert my objection. We can merge this patch and we will revert it lately. Regards, Laurent ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
/ On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // On 20/06/2011, at 8:54 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: // // On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // Instead, just produce a warning // // Why? // // It merits a comment at least? // // Seems self-evident to me. // Why should it be fatal just because a value couldn't be read? // Doesn't stop anything from working. // // Why should we support broken hardware or drivers? // // Better the user is told to toss his busted dongle / hardware than to tangle // with subtle followon errors? / Nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem with the driver. See http://www.mail-archive.com/openocd-development@lists.berlios.de/msg15945.html / / Objection ! If we cannot read this value back, this means we reach trouble with driver or device somewhere. Also, this trouble could affect following access ... This is why we stop with fatal error. Regards, Laurent http://www.amontec.com/jtagkey.shtml Amontec JTAGkey-2 USB JTAG INTERFACE ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/3] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal / OBJECTION
On 21/06/2011, at 1:07 AM, Laurent Gauch wrote: / On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // On 20/06/2011, at 8:54 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: // // On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Steve Bennett steveb at workware.net.au https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development wrote: // Instead, just produce a warning // // Why? // // It merits a comment at least? // // Seems self-evident to me. // Why should it be fatal just because a value couldn't be read? // Doesn't stop anything from working. // // Why should we support broken hardware or drivers? // // Better the user is told to toss his busted dongle / hardware than to tangle // with subtle followon errors? / Nothing to do with hardware. It's a problem with the driver. See http://www.mail-archive.com/openocd-development@lists.berlios.de/msg15945.html / / Objection ! If we cannot read this value back, this means we reach trouble with driver or device somewhere. Also, this trouble could affect following access ... This is why we stop with fatal error. OK. So what alternative solution would you suggest to make this driver work? Cheers, Steve -- µWeb: Embedded Web Framework - http://uweb.workware.net.au/ WorkWare Systems Pty Ltd W: www.workware.net.au P: +61 434 921 300 E: ste...@workware.net.au F: +61 7 3391 6002 ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
