Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD 0.5.0-rc2 release

On 13/07/2011, at 11:32 AM, Andrew Leech wrote: > On 11 July 2011 07:31, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: rc2 http://openocd.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=openocd/openocd;a=snapshot;h=d4cd6f032015552f00bf4b5a90f25f5f958e9d9e;sf=tgz > I'm assumin

Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD 0.5.0-rc2 release

On 13/07/2011 11:48 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: Andrew Leech wrote: Again just a release tarball issue, but the tarball from above doesn't work properly, it needs bootstrap run to get jimtcl etc In particular for a release it's really really important that the two separate packages (OpenOCD and jimt

Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD 0.5.0-rc2 release

Andrew Leech wrote: > Again just a release tarball issue, but the tarball from above doesn't work > properly, it needs bootstrap run to get jimtcl etc In particular for a release it's really really important that the two separate packages (OpenOCD and jimtcl) are *two separate packages*. The tri

Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD 0.5.0-rc2 release

On 11 July 2011 07:31, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: rc2 http://openocd.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=openocd/openocd;a=snapshot;h=d4cd6f032015552f00bf4b5a90f25f5f958e9d9e;sf=tgz I'm assuming some testing would be good :-) I'm just moving into a firmware project again, so

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12/07/2011 20:56, Peter Stuge wrote: >> >> Spencer Oliver wrote: Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that accomplish exactly the same thing? >>> >>> Main reason is that ftd2xx works better/faster on win

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 13/07/2011, at 6:23 AM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12/07/2011 20:56, Peter Stuge wrote: >> Spencer Oliver wrote: Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that accomplish exactly the same thing? >>> >>> Main reason is that ftd2xx works better/faster on windoze. >> >>

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011 20:56, Peter Stuge wrote: Spencer Oliver wrote: Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that accomplish exactly the same thing? Main reason is that ftd2xx works better/faster on windoze. Is it known how much, and why? off the top of my head no - the list ar

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

Spencer Oliver wrote: >> Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that >> accomplish exactly the same thing? > > Main reason is that ftd2xx works better/faster on windoze. Is it known how much, and why? //Peter ___ Openocd-development m

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011 20:53, Peter Stuge wrote: Spencer Oliver wrote: ftd2xx Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that accomplish exactly the same thing? Wouldn't it be nicer to simply cut ftd2xx and only use libftdi? What are respective advantages of the two libraries? Main

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

Spencer Oliver wrote: > ftd2xx Why are we duplicating effort on two different libraries that accomplish exactly the same thing? Wouldn't it be nicer to simply cut ftd2xx and only use libftdi? What are respective advantages of the two libraries? //Peter _

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011 16:03, Spencer Oliver wrote: I have pushed a fix for this issue - it checks the ftd2xx version etc. http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/ntfreak.git If i do not here any objections i am going to push this to master. It should be included in the 0.5 release Cheers Spen __

Re: [Openocd-development] OpenOCD 0.5.0-rc2 release

On 09:22 Mon 11 Jul , Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 11 July 2011 07:31, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > >> Totally agree on this - FreeBSD ports use automatic package download > >> and extraction mechanism, so having tarball for RC2 would be great! > >> Please let me know then its ava

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12 July 2011 15:04, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Although this problem is fixed in the latest libftd2xx1.0.5, >> that version is not yet publically available. >> Without this fix, the ftd2xx aborts with a fatal error and >> is thus unusable. >>

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Although this problem is fixed in the latest libftd2xx1.0.5, > that version is not yet publically available. > Without this fix, the ftd2xx aborts with a fatal error and > is thus unusable. > > Signed-off-by: Steve Bennett > --- >  src/jtag/

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > Try my repo now i have pushed a fix for the warnings. > Thanks. The warnings are gone now for usb_blaster.c. -- Xiaofan ___ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 14:36, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12 July 2011 14:34, Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: >>> Could not apply your patch so had to do it manually. >>> >>> I have pushed changes to my testing repo: >>> http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/ntfreak.g

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 14:34, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: >> Could not apply your patch so had to do it manually. >> >> I have pushed changes to my testing repo: >> http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/ntfreak.git >> >> No objections i will commit > > This is good

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > Could not apply your patch so had to do it manually. > > I have pushed changes to my testing repo: > http://repo.or.cz/w/openocd/ntfreak.git > > No objections i will commit This is good, tested under Ubuntu 10.10 64bit (with the latency pat

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12 July 2011 13:39, Laurent Gauch wrote: >> >> On 12/07/2011, at 10:18 PM, Spencer Oliver > > wrote: >> >> >/ On 12 July 2011 13:08, Xiaofan Chen > > > wrote: >> />>/ On

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011, at 10:18 PM, Spencer Oliver https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development>> wrote: >/ On 12 July 2011 13:08, Xiaofan Chen https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development>> wrote: />>/ On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Steve Bennett https://lists.berlio

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011, at 10:18 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12 July 2011 13:08, Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Steve Bennett >> wrote: >>> On 12/07/2011, at 9:10 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >>> If this problem eventually goes away, then I think it would make sense not >>

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12 July 2011 13:08, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On 12/07/2011, at 9:10 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> >>> If this problem eventually goes away, then I think it would make sense not >>> to leave cruft in OpenOCD that we have to remove later? >>> >

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 12:36, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12 July 2011 12:17, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On 12/07/2011, at 9:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: >> >>> On 12 July 2011 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote: For libftd2xx1.0.4, which uses a different directory structure than libftd2xx0.4.16 Wit

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On 12/07/2011, at 9:10 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > >> If this problem eventually goes away, then I think it would make sense not >> to leave cruft in OpenOCD that we have to remove later? >> >> The workaround is available on the mailing list..

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 12:17, Steve Bennett wrote: > On 12/07/2011, at 9:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > >> On 12 July 2011 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote: >>> For libftd2xx1.0.4, which uses a different directory structure >>> than libftd2xx0.4.16 >>> Without this fix the build fails with version 1.0.4 of th

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12/07/2011, at 9:11 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12 July 2011 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote: >> For libftd2xx1.0.4, which uses a different directory structure >> than libftd2xx0.4.16 >> Without this fix the build fails with version 1.0.4 of the driver. >> >> Note that this does not fix --with-

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

On 12/07/2011, at 9:10 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > If this problem eventually goes away, then I think it would make sense not > to leave cruft in OpenOCD that we have to remove later? > > The workaround is available on the mailing list... > > I don't maintain or know much about ft2232, just a gen

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 12:04, Steve Bennett wrote: > For libftd2xx1.0.4, which uses a different directory structure > than libftd2xx0.4.16 > Without this fix the build fails with version 1.0.4 of the driver. > > Note that this does not fix --with-ftd2xx-lib=shared > > Signed-off-by: Steve Bennett > ---

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

If this problem eventually goes away, then I think it would make sense not to leave cruft in OpenOCD that we have to remove later? The workaround is available on the mailing list... I don't maintain or know much about ft2232, just a general comment. -- Øyvind Harboe - Can Zylin Consulting help

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/3] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12/07/2011, at 9:04 PM, Spencer Oliver wrote: > On 12 July 2011 10:59, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >>> Great. >>> >>> Øyvind. What needs to be done to get this merged? >> >> I don't know this code. Is this a patch that should go into the current >> release? We're at rc2. >> >> Perhaps post a new m

Re: [Openocd-development] SWD todo

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > The basic concept is that both jtag > and swd can use arm_adi_v5 calls, depending on transport selected. To be more exact - the arm_adi_v5 is the wrapper for low level jtag or swd operations on jtag-dp or swd-dp. Target always use some standar

[Openocd-development] [PATCH 2/2] ft2232: Failure to get latency should not be fatal

Although this problem is fixed in the latest libftd2xx1.0.5, that version is not yet publically available. Without this fix, the ftd2xx aborts with a fatal error and is thus unusable. Signed-off-by: Steve Bennett --- src/jtag/drivers/ft2232.c |3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 delet

[Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/2] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

For libftd2xx1.0.4, which uses a different directory structure than libftd2xx0.4.16 Without this fix the build fails with version 1.0.4 of the driver. Note that this does not fix --with-ftd2xx-lib=shared Signed-off-by: Steve Bennett --- configure.in | 25 + 1 files cha

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/3] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 12 July 2011 10:59, Øyvind Harboe wrote: >> Great. >> >> Øyvind. What needs to be done to get this merged? > > I don't know this code. Is this a patch that should go into the current > release? We're at rc2. > > Perhaps post a new message with the patch and why it should > be included in the cu

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH] flash/nor/cfi: fix TopBottom for atmel chips

Nice :-) I don't have a problem with this patch. I don't know precisely what changes Jean-Christophe wants to go in after rc2 though... Perhaps the code could be simplified by the below, but then again perhaps not: int amd_two = 2, amd_three = 3; if (swapped) { ... } -- Øyvind Harboe -

[Openocd-development] [PATCH] flash/nor/cfi: fix TopBottom for atmel chips

There are some older atmel nor chips which have negated logic for TopBottom detection. This patch adds a special handling for the old chips. This is the same mechanism as implemented in linux kernel. Signed-off-by: Andreas Bießmann --- src/flash/nor/cfi.c | 21 + 1 files ch

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/3] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

> Great. > > Øyvind. What needs to be done to get this merged? I don't know this code. Is this a patch that should go into the current release? We're at rc2. Perhaps post a new message with the patch and why it should be included in the current release? Spencer knows more about this code, perhap

Re: [Openocd-development] SWD todo

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM, simon qian wrote: > 4. Add SWD drivers, this should be the libswd. And call SWD drivers in > adi_v5_swd. Hello Simon! This is almost done. Getting back to this today. When its done, then I get to higher layers. The basic concept is that both jtag and swd can use a

Re: [Openocd-development] [PATCH 1/3] ft2232: Fix configure --with-ftd2xx-linux-tardir

On 11/07/2011, at 11:52 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> On 11/07/2011, at 10:03 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Can som

[Openocd-development] SWD todo

I have reviewed the latest OpenOCD code. IMO, below should be considered. 1. add transport information to targets indicating which debug transport supported For example, LPC2148 supports JTAG, and STM32 supports both JTAG and SWD. So that, code can check the usability of the current selected tran

Re: [Openocd-development] Hi level debug application

On 12 July 2011 00:37, Hard Maker wrote: > Very thank's, in the last hour I can configure eclipse (googling), but I'm > interesting in a more lightweight application, like Code::Blocks or > something like that. Here is a openocd plugin for codeblocks: http://developer.berlios.de/projects/cbmcu/

Re: [Openocd-development] Idea for flash_write image to speed up CFI programming

> if we made the write algo buffer size tweak-able then we > get the same effect. The trick is to tweak the current driver code to stage code and upload data so that it can all be uploaded into ram and then just pressing "go". Perhaps if we made the previous algorithm jump to the next one and hav

Re: [Openocd-development] Idea for flash_write image to speed up CFI programming

On 12 July 2011 06:23, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Problem: CFI flashes can be quite slow. 200kBytes erase + 100kBytes write > are not uncommon limitations => maximum theoretical performance > of 66kBytes/s erase+write speed. > > With a 16mByte flash, this means 4 minutes best case. > > Alternative app