On Wednesday 03 March 2010, simon qian wrote: > What I mean "interface" is not debug adaptors,
Good. I suspected that. :) Let's call this notion a "transport", then ... to avoid introducing any more confusion. Not that "interface" was a good word to use for "debug adapters" (or for anything at all, without adjectives to specify what kind of interface is reference) ... but we can easily avoid worsening that problem (just by using a less-problematic term like "transport".) > and program_mode may be > debug_mode in OpenOCD. > Vsprog support program only, so I use program_mode. Right. You might make a proposal about how to add something like a "program" mode to OpenOCD, if that's where you're going. Meanwhile, I'll draft something on transport modes (as they apply to "debug adapters" and targets. While the initial focus will of course be JTAG vs SWD, I'll keep in mind that others might come along (especially for "program" mode). > For Cortex-M3, there shoudl be JTAG and SWD debug mode, so it need JTAG and > SWD "interfaces". There also exist SWD-only Cortex-M3 chips (like LPC-13xx). > And For AVR ISP, SPI "interface" support will be needed. > So this is the framework for managing all these "interfaces". But that will only relate to "program" mode... > This feature is mentioned some time age in the list, although I think JTAG > and SWD is enough for OpenOCD. In "debug mode", yes. If a "program mode" is added, then more transports than those two will be needed. - Dave _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
