W dniu 2013-01-27 03:54, Andreas Fritiofson pisze: > As it looks now, you seem to have patched up the architecture where > needed to force in LibSWD. And in order to merge your SWD work, we'll > also have to accept those architectural decisions that you've made > without discussion, thereby stifling other efforts in the area.
Tomek was asking about things multiple times on the list and from what I remember there was almost no response. Now you're telling him that the changes are no good because he didn't ask... There's even no need to search the archives, as now Tomek is asking about the internals reorganizations and there's actually NO discussion there, and "don't rewrite in C++" + "don't use prefixes" are the only opinions that is "on topic". So we have two "don't-s" and no "do-s" - just like with SWD - everyone knows what is the wrong approach, no one shares info how would a good one look like. BTW - the info that "first OpenOCD should be redesigned" is worthless without info on how it should be done (to not be rejected after year of work), isn't it? I guess it's official now - OpenOCD is NEVER* going to have SWD support as: a. no one is working on it b. the only person that actually was, got dismissed because the changes are "not perfect" c. OpenOCDs design does not fit anything other than JTAG, and no one's working on changing that * - in next 10 years, until a "perfect" architecture redesign will be decided upon BTW - sorry to ask - does "ST-link interface as a target" with it's duplicated config files for targets is OK for this "nothing but perfect" approach? I guess it's a hack too, with lot's of code duplication (like RTOS does need to support "st-link" target, not only "cortex-m3"), yet hundreds of OpenOCD users are happily using it (me included)... Adding SWD would no doubt make that people miserable and furious. I've also got one smart-ass comment about Peter's opinion that FOSS is perfect and commercial software is crap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems How's that possible that the most perfect FOSS in the world appeals to just 1% of population, and the other 99% prefer crap? CrossWorks has SWD over FTx232 based adapters. And it works. And I guess no one using it cares whether it's a perfect solution or a dirty hack as long as it gets the job done (which it obviously does). This is really sad... Users of OpenOCD don't really care if its code is perfect or not, they just know that it does not support SWD and it's been enough time for it to implement that... What's the purpose of OpenOCD - being an example of "perfect" software or being an usable and versatile tool for debugging? I think some of people on this list just don't care about the latter and are striving only for the former... 4\/3!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ OpenOCD-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
