Xiaofan Chen wrote: > OpenOCD does support SWD with ST-Link, even without > much SWD codes on the OpenOCD side.
It's a perfect example of how *not* to do open source development. The situation is incredibly embarrassing for ST and OpenOCD. (ST because they proposed the code, and OpenOCD because the code was included.) Manuel Borchers wrote: > not to focus too mich on the bitstream approach as "the solution" to > all problems... Oh absolutely. Bitstream level operations in OpenOCD are obsolete, but there are lots of stupid FTDI interfaces out there, and I think LibSWD driving them through Andreas' mpsse layer is fine. I think the ST-Link constituted a good opportunity to work on SWD infrastructure, but since there seems to have been no discussion with other SWD stakeholders during ST-Link development I guess someone else will have to clean that up. //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 OpenOCD-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openocd-devel
