Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: > >>> Incidentally, people are sending patches to expose the FTDI >>> expanders as common GPIO chips under Linux, so we can >>> internally

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: > >>> Incidentally, people are sending patches to expose the FTDI >>> expanders as common GPIO chips under Linux, so we can >>> internally in the kernel or from the usersapce character

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: >> Incidentally, people are sending patches to expose the FTDI >> expanders as common GPIO chips under Linux, so we can >> internally in the kernel or from the usersapce character device >> access them as "some GPIOs". > >

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: >> Incidentally, people are sending patches to expose the FTDI >> expanders as common GPIO chips under Linux, so we can >> internally in the kernel or from the usersapce character device >> access them as "some GPIOs". > > I know my team at

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Stuart Longland wrote: > [Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the > DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] > On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Gnah! >> Whoever writes a slot-in replacement

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Stuart Longland wrote: > [Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the > DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] > On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Gnah! >> Whoever writes a slot-in replacement making the character device

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Stuart Longland wrote: > [Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the > DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] > On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Gnah! >> Whoever writes a slot-in replacement

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Stuart Longland wrote: > [Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the > DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] > On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: >> Gnah! >> Whoever writes a slot-in replacement making the character device

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray >>> wrote: >>> SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

[Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: > Gnah! > Whoever writes a slot-in replacement making the character device > take precendence wins lots of karma. What would such a

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

[Note: dropping vad...@maellanox.com as SMTP server complained about the DNS server returning NXDOMAIN. Apologies.] On 25/08/17 18:32, Linus Walleij wrote: > Gnah! > Whoever writes a slot-in replacement making the character device > take precendence wins lots of karma. What would such a

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray >> wrote: >> >>> SoC which are not equipped with JTAG

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:37 PM, Rick Altherr wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij > wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray >> wrote: >> >>> SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built >>> on top of JTAG core driver

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray > wrote: > >> SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built >> on top of JTAG core driver infrastructure, by

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray > wrote: > >> SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built >> on top of JTAG core driver infrastructure, by applying bit-banging of >> TDI, TDO, TCK and TMS pins

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray wrote: > SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built > on top of JTAG core driver infrastructure, by applying bit-banging of > TDI, TDO, TCK and TMS pins within the hardware specific driver. I

Re: [patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Oleksandr Shamray wrote: > SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built > on top of JTAG core driver infrastructure, by applying bit-banging of > TDI, TDO, TCK and TMS pins within the hardware specific driver. I guess you mean it should

[patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

When a need raise up to use JTAG interface for system's devices programming or CPU debugging, usually the user layer application implements jtag protocol by bit-bang or using a proprietary connection to vendor hardware. This method can be slow and not generic. We propose to implement general

[patch v6 0/3] JTAG driver introduction

When a need raise up to use JTAG interface for system's devices programming or CPU debugging, usually the user layer application implements jtag protocol by bit-bang or using a proprietary connection to vendor hardware. This method can be slow and not generic. We propose to implement general