Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Who: OpenOCD developers. Here I include those that contribute > target library scripts. I don't see "normal" OpenOCD developers > messing around with this. Ideally they should just specify the > target via the target library and then live happily ever after without > worrying about OpenOCD again :-) If end users never mess > around with the scripting language
I don't really see this happening. At work, I use a BDI2000 on different targets, and I usually have to write a config file that matches my hardware. OpenOCD may provide a library for interface and CPU definitions, but it can not save me from writing a config for my special board, and usually I will not distribute those (first, they are useless to anyone else without access to that hardware, and second, they may be under NDA). The target library is fine and useful, but I think we can not expect that all users will simply use the library without the need to customize a config for their board. > - write a flash driver in tcl. A flash driver consists of "a few peeks > and pokes". Could a tcl script handle this for non-standard parts? > The eCos + ocl flash drivers have had zero visible success. This > would have to be for OpenOCD developers and not OpenOCD > users I think. > - write variant target support in tcl. The slight arm7/9 variants > could perhaps be written in tcl? I do not really see the benefit of splitting the source code for developers into two languages. Having a full-fledged scripting language for configuration is great, however, if I need to learn another language to add/modify/patch openocd code (like the CFI flash driver), I will be reluctant to do so. Another problem: how do you debug a mixture of C and script code? Currently, I can start up gdb on openocd and see everything that happens. cu Michael _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
