On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Freddie Chopin <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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...
>
Oh, but I have raised my concerns about the API at least once before, I
have also outlined how I would like it instead. I didn't get a satisfactory
explanation how my concerns could be addressed. I'm entitled to my opinion
and I don't have an obligation to tell anyone about it at any particular
point in time, especially if they don't want to listen. I have also put in
a fair bit of work into my own vision of the OpenOCD architecture so
whatever we do, work will be wasted. That's normal when you develop. You
come up with several ideas, maybe try them out in your head or in
proof-of-concept code, pick out the best parts and discard the stuff that
doesn't work. Then back to the drawing board. If Tomek likes to write fully
functional, polished code to describe his suggestion, that's fine. Then it
IS a suggestion that we can discuss, pick out the good parts, change others
and finally arrive at something that's based on collaboration and the
accumulated experience of several developers. But if he's unwilling to
change any part of the design, heck, even rebase it to make it easier to
review, then I'm not of the opinion that we should merge it just because he
would feel sad if we didn't.
I'm NOT saying his ideas are all wrong. I've seen some nifty concepts there
that we definitely could use in one form or another. But there are also bad
design choices, and if we're not allowed to say that, I don't see the point
of reviewing the code at all. He could just use his own fork of OpenOCD and
be done with it.
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
>
Because of c. And because several people have already done a before c.
> b. the only person that actually was, got dismissed because the changes
> are "not perfect"
>
He's not dismissed, he's gotten some negative feedback and some complaints
that his patches are hard to review (which I agree with). He's even got
help with fixing up the patches so we can see more clearly what parts are
good and what needs more work.
> c. OpenOCDs design does not fit anything other than JTAG, and no one's
> working on changing that
>
But at least I am, and I guess several others have brilliant ideas and
opinions, it's just not going very fast. I'll never complete it on my own.
And it wouldn't be great if I did. It's not a one man's job. But if we work
together towards a common goal we should be able to do it. That means we
have to be more organized. We need to define that common goal first.
Anything we merge before that which is a hack, "proof-of-concept" or
otherwise in the wrong direction will limit our freedom when we define that
goal, because people tend to be nostalgic about code that is already
merged. But as you have already noticed, OpenOCD may not have the momentum
to maintain these kinds of discussions.
> * - in next 10 years, until a "perfect" architecture redesign will be
> decided upon
>
Yes, it'll probably take 10 years if no-one's willing to present and
discuss ideas instead of using their time to blindly code towards their own
goal.
> 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.
>
No-one is stopping anyone from using Tomek's patches, or anyone else's.
That's the beauty of free software. If you just want SWD up and running so
you can debug or program your SWD-only target, there are solutions out
there to do it. I've no doubt that Tomek's work does the job sufficiently
well. If you want to improve OpenOCD in the long run, there's no benefit to
merging work in the wrong direction.
> 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...
>
Well as of now I think it lacks in both usability and versatility (and
maintainability and ...) and fixing that WILL require making it more
"perfect". So they are not separate goals but one. And we need to share the
vision of the "perfect" debug tool in order to get closer. My problem with
Tomek's patches is that while being presented as non-invasive patches to
add SWD, they actually introduce significant architectural changes that
seem to be part of a bigger plan (his coming "redesign" work) that we've
had absolutely zero (chance of) discussion about.
/Andreas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
