Mike Frysinger wrote:

>> Therefore I called it "parportgpio". I noticed the conflict, while
>> compiling it for the first time. ;)
>
> ah, but your configure.ac patch still says "gpio"

Yes, maybe I should have changed that too. But I thought there is no
conflict, because it is the only "gpio" in the group of lowlevel parport
drivers.


> the way the Linux GPIO sysfs interface works is:
>  - by default, no pins are exported to userspace
>  - to export a pin, you write the pin you want to request to the pseudo
>  file "export" (this is what the gpio_export() func does)

Ok, I understand.
What were the reasons against exporting all GPIO pins by default?


>> Under NetBSD (and OpenBSD) it is just a single file, /dev/gpio0, which
>> controls all GPIO pins of a device via ioctl().
>
> sounds like we could still utilize the existing gpio driver ... we just 
> replace the core concepts (requesting/releasing a pin, and changing its 
> direction/value at runtime) with the NetBSD/OpenBSD ioctls

That is certainly possible. But also setting a pin to 0 or 1 has to be done
via ioctl().


>> And I wanted to use the byteblaster.c cable (I have a ByteblasterMV),
>> which depends on urj_tap_parport_xxx accessor functions. So it seemed
>> logical for me to add a new parport lowlevel driver.
>
> hmm, this sounds like a general issue.  the point of the current gpio
> driver is to drive the JTAG pins manually.  what you want to do is
> simulate a parallel port with gpio pins and connect a cable driver to
> that.

Indeed.
In fact it is a real parallel port. :)


> so the current code is designed to bypass the ByteblasterMV completely.
>  is there a reason you need this between UrJTAG and the target hardware
> ?

Not much. IIRC you have to drive a specific parallel port pin low to enable
the output lines of the 74HC244 chip on the ByteblasterMV.


> sounds like what we actually want to do is rip the current code out of
> the GPIO cable driver and into a GPIO core, and then add a GPIO parport
> lowlevel driver that uses this new core.

Sounds good. If you prepare the GPIO code for Linux, I can add NetBSD
support and will write the parport lowlevel driver using it.


Regards,

-- 
Frank Wille


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure 
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, 
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this 
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
UrJTAG-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development

Reply via email to