On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:42 PM, <dan...@tortek.co.nz> wrote: > MSPDebug version 0.9 is now available. It features support for a > couple of new devices (F2132 and F169), hopefully fixed support for > 5xxx devices with FET430UIF programmers, and support for the Olimex > MSP-JTAG-TINY programmer via either libusb or via a tty device. > > Note that command-line options have changed in an effort to keep things > tidy, so you'll probably want to check --help before attempting to use > the new version. The new options scheme is: > > mspdebug [options] <driver> [command ...] > > Where <driver> is one of "rf2500", "olimex", "sim", "uif" or > "uif-bsl". > > You can download the new version from here: > > http://mspdebug.sourceforge.net/download.html > > - Daniel
Hi Daniel, Better and better! This version works fine with my eZ430-RF2500, even after upgrading Ubuntu from 9.10 to 10.4. However, I'm not so fortunate with my FET430UIF talking to a Softbaugh DIr169 board (which uses an MSP430F169). I get the following message: Trying to open UIF on /dev/ttyUSB0... Initializing FET... FET protocol version is 20305000 Configured for Spy-Bi-Wire Set Vcc: 3000 mV fet: FET returned error code 4 (Could not find device (or device not supported)) fet: command C_IDENT1 failed fet: identify failed I get the same message whether the command line is: mspdebug -d /dev/ttyUSB0 uif or mspdebug --fet-force-id 20305000 -d /dev/ttyUSB0 uif Although, as I write this, I'm thinking that "20305000" may not be the right id to be trying. I reviewed some past threads to see if I missed something (I wasn't that interested in the UIF before!). It seems that a newer version of the patch you suggested to Hans in a message on June 8 is already incorporated in my "fet.c". Another thing that's confusing me somewhat is the devices supported that "--fet-list" reports. Is the device the one in the FET or in what the FET talks to (I think this is the case). Do you have to change your software to support specific devices? I would understand classes of devices - 1xxx vs 2xxx, JTAG vs Spy-by-wire, non-X vs X devices, but wouldn't the interface otherwise be generic? Please forgive my ignorance. Thanks, John
