Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Austin, Alex wrote: > > Would it hurt too much to start out creating a library that wraps > either libftd2xx or libftdi depending on configuration and exposes > the same interface either way? I suspect it would, but I've not looked at that issue. On the other hand,

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

> -Original Message- > From: David Brownell [mailto:davi...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:17 PM > To: Laurent Gauch > Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de; Austin, Alex > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for > mult

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Laurent Gauch wrote: > The idea of the JTAG and Debug port over FT2232 as with the Amontec > JTAGkey ( now JTAGkey-2, in 2010 JTAGkey-3 ), So on Friday (2010!) we'll be hearing all about JTAGkey-3! ;) > is to use one port for > JTAG / RTCK / TRST / RESET signal /

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

On Monday 28 December 2009, Austin, Alex wrote: > The refactor is not to support our patch, just to clean up the ft2232 > driver. My comment is in response to something that was said should > probably be done anyway, not specifically to support our device. I > think support for our device could be

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

: Laurent Gauch; openocd-development@lists.berlios.de >> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for >> multiple-ports on FT4232H >> >> >>> I could probably do this, but supporting the 4232 is time I can bill >>> >> to >

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

> The refactor is not to support our patch, just to clean up the ft2232 > driver. My comment is in response to something that was said should > probably be done anyway, not specifically to support our device. I > think support for our device could be done without said refactor, but > the code would

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

rlios.de > Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for > multiple-ports on FT4232H > > > I could probably do this, but supporting the 4232 is time I can bill > to > > my company, while driver refactoring is not (yet). > > Why should the community t

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

> I could probably do this, but supporting the 4232 is time I can bill to > my company, while driver refactoring is not (yet). Why should the community take on cleanup and refactoring work to support your company's patch? You may have a tiny problem explaining the community why they should accept

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

On Wednesday 23 December 2009, Laurent Gauch wrote: > On Tuesday 22 December 2009, Alex Austin wrote: > > I doubt this is the right way to do things, but it hasn't broken > > anything yet. This is just providing framework support for an adapter > > with reset lines driven by BDBUS instead of ACBUS.

Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

On Wednesday 23 December 2009, Laurent Gauch wrote: > For All: >   DO NOT ACCEPT TO CHANGE FT2232.c for mixed channels. So his "RFC" plot was successful. :) > For Alex : >   PLEASE CREATE A NEW DRIVER ! Hmm, maybe splitting the ft2232.c code into more manageable chunks would suffice? That's a

[Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for multiple-ports on FT4232H

> > >/ -Original Message- > />/ From: openocd-development-bounces at lists.berlios.de > > [mailto:openocd- > />/ development-bounces at lists.berlios.de > ] On B