Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] A few thoughts on OpenOCD long term goals
>
> I've heard this concern many times, but I guess at the end of the
> day experienced embedded engineers have an edge
>
> Embedded development *is* quite involved... Also tools are
> quite rough aroun
I've heard this concern many times, but I guess at the end of the
day experienced embedded engineers have an edge
Embedded development *is* quite involved... Also tools are
quite rough around the edges because any particular MCU
has a very narrow audience.
There are *literally* 1 differen
Hi,
because I'm particularly newbie in Linux debugging, I have another view than
you. Im trying to run jtag + openocd + gdb + something (Eclipse) to run, and
there is several another problems than openocd which needs to be solved.
Jtag + openocd + gdb runs perfectly (if you find your jtag and chip
> -Original Message-
> From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:openocd-
> development-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Øyvind Harboe
> Sent: zondag 20 september 2009 19:53
> To: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
> Subject: [Openocd-development]
On Sunday 20 September 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
> > Nexus sits on top of JTAG..
>
> I know that but that doesn't change the fact that it is a different
> protocol than the Atmel JTAGII.
For the JTAG signals, it's the same protocol. Same state
machine, etc.
For the "auxiliary port" it's wh
> As for other types of processor Atmel would be nice if they would release
> the specs for their proprietary debug module.
> They do publish the specs for the JTAG programming but an engineer at Atmel
> told me that they intend to keep the debug stuff secret.
I would expect that Atmel made a sane
> Well I just priced at DigiKey, and I saw Q-1000 prices
> are higher than that. Full speed, $US 3.85; high speed
> is a bit cheaper (yay!) at $US 3.70 ...
The cost of a beer rather than a few sips then. Same
thing really :-)
If it was free it wouldn't make a difference.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Em
David Brownell a écrit :
> On Sunday 20 September 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
>
>> They have the two protocols, they are not the same. The nexus part
>> involves a very expensive emulator style device while
>> the other one is just the Atmel version of JTAG debugging.
>>
>
> Nexus sits on
On Sunday 20 September 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
> They have the two protocols, they are not the same. The nexus part
> involves a very expensive emulator style device while
> the other one is just the Atmel version of JTAG debugging.
Nexus sits on top of JTAG..
___
David Brownell a écrit :
> On Sunday 20 September 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
>
>> As for other types of processor Atmel would be nice if they would
>> release the specs for their proprietary debug module.
>> They do publish the specs for the JTAG programming but an engineer at
>> Atmel told m
On Sunday 20 September 2009, Michel Catudal wrote:
> As for other types of processor Atmel would be nice if they would
> release the specs for their proprietary debug module.
> They do publish the specs for the JTAG programming but an engineer at
> Atmel told me that they intend to keep the debug
On Sunday 20 September 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>
> Short term(a year or so), I'd like to see robustness for
> the ARM target *much* improved
"The" ARM? :)
There are a lot of them ...
- ARMv4 chips other than ARM7TDMI ("Mr Embedded ARM")
aren't big growth targets;
- ARMv5 has many curr
Øyvind Harboe a écrit :
> In terms of getting levarage with smaller chip vendors,
> I believe http://www.vinchip.com is a case in point, but
> I have no idea if their 32 bit risc is just another ARM
> or whether it's something proprietary(didn't really look).
>
From what I read on the site it
One of my goals w/OpenOCD is that it becomes yet another
thing that hardware vendors have to "check off" on the
GCC toolchain list. Not having OpenOCD support should
be like not having GDB support.
This is a long way off, but it's something to aspire to.
Short term(a year or so), I'd like to see
14 matches
Mail list logo
