On Monday 18 May 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Should we make the old tms sequences default for 0.2?
Not unless there's a complete failure of testing, or
they prove to be deeply flawed, IMO.
Plan on using the new ones, fixing them (e.g. merging the
fix Spencer sent earlier today), and getting a m
Zach Welch pisze:
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 08:04 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>> Should we make the old tms sequences default for 0.2? I don't like it
>> from the point of view that we can't then *force* users to test it.
>>
>> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/2009-May/006762.ht
On Tuesday 19 May 2009 07:46:10 Zach Welch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I updated The List in r1828 (see the TODO file) to help prepare the
> OpenOCD project for its forthcoming 0.2.0 release. Please review it to
> make sure that it contains the features that you want OpenOCD to have
> before it is "done"
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 08:04 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> > - J-link stability and compatibility
> > - CFI driver chip/bus width issues (status??)
> > - PIC32 support (long-term)
>
> Should we make the old tms sequences default for 0.2? I don't like it
> from the point of view that we can't then *
> - J-link stability and compatibility
> - CFI driver chip/bus width issues (status??)
> - PIC32 support (long-term)
Should we make the old tms sequences default for 0.2? I don't like it
from the point of view that we can't then *force* users to test it.
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd
Hi all,
I updated The List in r1828 (see the TODO file) to help prepare the
OpenOCD project for its forthcoming 0.2.0 release. Please review it to
make sure that it contains the features that you want OpenOCD to have
before it is "done" (not only for 0.2.0). Please reply to this thread
with patc
