On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Peter Stuge <[email protected]> wrote: > Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> >> I guess that the FW version might be more relevant than the HW version, > .. >> Also HW revision is quite important. > > Please create two matrixes of recommended firmware versions for each > hardware somewhere in the code: > > * lowest known good version > * highest known bad version > > Make <= highest known bad an error. > > Warn on highest known bad < current < lowest known good. > > Please don't build these matrixes using the mailing list. I'd suggest > to first write some very simple skeleton code, maybe just some > arrays, and then push some commits with changes according to test > results.
I do not think this is strictly necessary for V7/V6 and below, just ask the user to update to the latest Segger FW which is included in the Segger software package. For V8, there are too many versions to track. http://www.segger.com/j-link-older-versions.html Anything below 4.10 is not worth tracking, for example. I would even argue that we do not need to track any old version once the patch is integrated. Just track from V4.46f onwards for V8 (current release version). Right now we only know 4.22g does not work with the patched version. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
