John Kasunich wrote:
> Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
>> I'm proposing instead to change the command-line syntax to something
>> like this:
>>
>> bfload BoardType[:BoardId]=FirmwareFile
...
> I really like that scheme - go for it!
Ok!
> The only thing that comes to mind is error reporting - if
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
(snippage)
> I'm proposing instead to change the command-line syntax to something
> like this:
>
> bfload BoardType[:BoardId]=FirmwareFile
>
> The BoardType would be one of the supported board names, such as 5i20,
> 5i22-1, 4i68, 7i43, etc. For the PCI boards,
I will repeat what Steve said.
Thanks for all the work on this.
I will never use that particular interface probably, but I like that
there will be a wide and full support for many computer-to-machine
interfaces.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Sebastian Kuzminsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steph
Stephen Wille Padnos wrote:
> Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
>
>> Hi JMKasunich and SWPadnos, would you mind if I added support for the
>> 7i43 (EPP) board to bfload? The structure of bfload makes it look like
>> it could be done pretty cleanly.
>>
>>
> I have no objection to adding that function
Mario. wrote:
> Concern: if it would damage latency or break functionality of
> something else, then I don't know.
Latency and throughput in this particular tool is not all that
important, since it gets run before the machine is started. But even
so, the change I'm proposing shouldn't affect th
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
>Hi JMKasunich and SWPadnos, would you mind if I added support for the
>7i43 (EPP) board to bfload? The structure of bfload makes it look like
>it could be done pretty cleanly.
>
>
I have no objection to adding that functionality. One question about
programming vi
Concern: if it would damage latency or break functionality of
something else, then I don't know.
Comment: if it works well, go for it, EMC will get only stronger ;-)
On 4/3/08, Sebastian Kuzminsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi JMKasunich and SWPadnos, would you mind if I added support for the
>
Sebastian Kuzminsky wrote:
> on this local bus. The 9030's local bus includes a "Not Ready" line,
> which local-bus devices can assert to request local-bus wait states. A
> set of bits called LASxBRD in the 9030 chipset's status/control
> registers determines whether the chipset honors the Not
