On 09.01.2012 14:34, Andre Renaud wrote:
> Hi,
> I am looking at implementing a smart JTAG debugger - ethernet
> attached,
> with enough intelligence within it to have some level of JTAG smarts,
> but not the full OpenOCD.
Everybody seems to wants to use ethernet and gdbserver. Why not go with
s
On 10/01/12 11:02, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Andre Renaud wrote:
>> My main issue (I believe) is that I don't have a BSD sockets
>> library (currently using lwIP), so the GDB socket/Telnet socket
>> stuff would be incompatible.
>
> lwIP can at least accept a few TCP connections.
Yes, the stack is perf
Andre Renaud wrote:
> My main issue (I believe) is that I don't have a BSD sockets
> library (currently using lwIP), so the GDB socket/Telnet socket
> stuff would be incompatible.
lwIP can at least accept a few TCP connections.
> > How will the product be licensed?
>
> This is really just a con
On 10/01/12 10:31, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Andre Renaud wrote:
>> I am looking at implementing a smart JTAG debugger - ethernet attached,
>> with enough intelligence within it to have some level of JTAG smarts,
>> but not the full OpenOCD.
> ..
>> Does anyone have any comments on where I should start
Andre Renaud wrote:
> I am looking at implementing a smart JTAG debugger - ethernet attached,
> with enough intelligence within it to have some level of JTAG smarts,
> but not the full OpenOCD.
..
> Does anyone have any comments on where I should start looking?
Even if you don't want full OpenOCD
Hi,
I am looking at implementing a smart JTAG debugger - ethernet attached,
with enough intelligence within it to have some level of JTAG smarts,
but not the full OpenOCD.
As a test measure, I've implemented the protocol in the
drivers/remote_bitbang.c driver, just to demonstrate that it works. Th
