David Brownell wrote: > If you've paid attention, you have seen this patch before (or a very > slightly earlier version). I expect to commit it soonish on grounds > that it'll be needed, and seems innocuous/safe, and will move us just > a bit closer to working SWD ... :) > > From: David Brownell <[email protected]> > Subject: swj-dp.tcl (SWD infrastructure #1) > > Provide new helper proc that can set up either an SWD or JTAG DAP > based on the transport which is in use -- mostly for SWJ-DP. > > Also update some SWJ-DP based chips/targets to use it. The goal > is making SWD-vs-JTAG transparent in most places. SWJ-DP based chips > really need this flexible configuration to cope with debug adapters > that support different transports, without needing new target configs > for each transport or adapter. > > For JTAG-DP, callers will use "jtag newtap" directly, as today; only > one chip-level transport option exists. > > For SW-DP (e.g. LPC1[13]xx or EFM32, they'll use "swd newdap" directly > (part of an upcoming SWD transport patch). Again, only one transport > option exists, so hard-wiring is appropriate there. > > > Signed-off-by: David Brownell <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Peter Stuge <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
