On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> are ignore the random crap introduced by Eclipse IDE,
Merged.
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
Hi All,
Thought I might throw this out there while I was working in Eclipse. If we
are ignore the random crap introduced by Eclipse IDE, we were missing some
things in the .gitignore file. This just adds those things. They were
annoying me :).
--
// Dean Glazeski
From 862baefe7211e617b5dab977
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Austin, Alex wrote:
>
> Would it hurt too much to start out creating a library that wraps
> either libftd2xx or libftdi depending on configuration and exposes
> the same interface either way?
I suspect it would, but I've not looked at that issue.
On the other hand,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Brownell [mailto:davi...@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 3:17 PM
> To: Laurent Gauch
> Cc: openocd-development@lists.berlios.de; Austin, Alex
> Subject: Re: [Openocd-development] [patch/rfc] Add support for
> multiple-ports on FT4232H
>
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> I will stop referring to the "obscure forum":-)
FWIW that Sparkun forum is only moderately obscure.
It's the one Olimex points its customers to, and we
mention it as a "User's Forum" in our documentation.
However, it *is* something that's n
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> Same issue of former patch "ARM9TDMI: Fix segfault.", but in additional
> places.
Someone is getting some good testing and bugfixing done ... :)
Merged; thanks.
Do you have a strategy for finding these, or are you just
tripping over these
Hi Flemming,
--- Flemming Futtrup schrieb am Mi, 30.12.2009:
> Including this:
> mww 0xFFE08200 0x0081
>
> Which I believe to be what you mention?
>
Yes. And it's ok! (The buffer is disabled)
> flash bank cfi 0x8000 0x80 2 2 $_TARGETNAME jedec_probe
I'm surprised that this
Hi Michael,
I will stop referring to the "obscure forum":-)
You are right there are very little differences from the 39VF6401B flash
to some of its predecessors.
I used "Beyond Compare to compare the SST39VF16/32/64-01 and the
39VF640XB specs, and besides H vs 555H and 2AAAH vs 2AAH differen
Same issue of former patch "ARM9TDMI: Fix segfault.", but in additional places.
When target board is powered off, or JTAG cable disconnected, target
is not examined and pointer arm7_9->eice_cache is NULL.
How to verify:
- create a simple openocd.cfg file containing following 2 lines:
source [f
On Tuesday 15 December 2009, Dubreuil, Thomas wrote:
> on the other hand, the dump_image function seems working but it's very
> low : 50 sec for 1024 bytes ! Is it normal? My Jtag speed is 6 MHz.
I don't know about that MIPS code, but as a rule there's not
been a lot of work on making it fast to *
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for all the comments Good to know that I might be on the track.
>
> Here are my comments/questions:
>
>> So something goes wrong when running the programming algorithm on the
>>
> target. One possible area would be the command-completion chec
On Monday 28 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> I'm not quite up to speed on the SWD stuff yet, but I want
> to follow this closely enough that I can implement hardware
> acceleration of the SWD protocol on the ZY1000(an embedded
> OpenOCD host).
My l33t mind-reading powers have improved. I kn
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
>
> The " Error: protect: cfi primary command set 2 unsupported" message only
> appears when I run the protect command in the script.
>
That is OK - AMD (02) commandset flashs usually do not have per-sector
protection, so the protect/unprotect operation
On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Laurent Gauch wrote:
> The idea of the JTAG and Debug port over FT2232 as with the Amontec
> JTAGkey ( now JTAGkey-2, in 2010 JTAGkey-3 ),
So on Friday (2010!) we'll be hearing all about JTAGkey-3! ;)
> is to use one port for
> JTAG / RTCK / TRST / RESET signal /
On Monday 28 December 2009, Austin, Alex wrote:
> The refactor is not to support our patch, just to clean up the ft2232
> driver. My comment is in response to something that was said should
> probably be done anyway, not specifically to support our device. I
> think support for our device could be
Hi Guys,
I am a little lost:-)
What is this code part about? If it is about querying - the flash was already
identified, but it is probably not...
Thanks Flemming
-Original Message-
From: openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:openocd-development-boun...@lists.berlios.de
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Michael Schwingen wrote:
> David Brownell wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> >
> >> Should every file in the project be converted to TAB width = 4 ?
> >>
> >
> > NO!!!
>
> Why not?
>
> I do not like tab=4 myself,
That's part of i
Hi Rolf,
Following commands are called on reset_init:
## -- Event handlers --
proc reset_init { } {
jtag_khz 200
# Force target into ARM state
armv4_5 core_state arm
# -- 1. Disconnect the PLL with one feed sequence if PLL is already
connected.
On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> In attachment there is the first patch of the set, compressed.
> It just touches the following files:
> ./BUGS
> ./NEWS-0.2.0
> ./NEWTAPS
> ./PATCHES
> ./README.Win32
> ./TODO
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure.in
> ./doc/manual/primer/commands.txt
> ./
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> Fix, in attachment, just tests target has been already examined.
> I believe this is the proper place for the check, but please confirm.
This is right; good patch, thanks. Merged.
___
Openocd-devel
Hi Michael,
Thanks for all the comments Good to know that I might be on the track.
Here are my comments/questions:
> So something goes wrong when running the programming algorithm on the
target. One possible area would be the command-completion check, where
the toggle/error bits differ between ma
Segfault conditions:
- target is arm926ejs (any arm9tdmi should behave same)
- board is powered off, or JTAG is missing
- start openOCD (obviously complains that cannot reach target)
- type command "arm9tdmi vector_catch reset"
Get segfault at arm9tdmi.c:845 for NULL pointer arm7_9->eice_cache
Suc
Sounds reasonable.
Pushed.
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 00
http://www.zylin.com/zy1000.html
ARM7 ARM9 ARM11 XScale Cortex
JTAG debugger and flash programmer
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-deve
Hi,
in the file ./tcl/interface/parport_dlc5.cfg the line
parport_port /dev/parport0
is not correct, since the argument for such command must be an integer.
Error message is:
Error: Invalid command argument
parport_port option value ('/dev/parport0') is not valid
Command handler execution failed
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> So are you thinking about creating a patch for the other cases than the
> one that is already handled in OpenOCD?
>
No. I think it is best to handle these SST flashs as non-CFI, because I
am not sure how to sanitize the CFI data from these parts in a uniform way.
cu
Mich
> Exactly. I tried a workaround some time ago, but the CFI data in the SST
> flashs was not really useable.
So are you thinking about creating a patch for the other cases than the
one that is already handled in OpenOCD?
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / International +47 51 63 25 0
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Does it have anything to do with this?
>
> src/flash/nor/cfi.c:
>
>
> /* enter CFI query mode
>* according to JEDEC Standard No. 68.01,
>* a single bus sequence with address = 0x55, data = 0x98
> should put
>* the
> However, the datasheet talks about a three-byte command to enter CFI
> mode, which is in conflict with the CFI spec. I remember some older SST
> flashs had the same problem (and when using the 3-byte sequence, the CFI
> tables were present, but broken).
>
> If the 39VF6401B behaves like that, it
Flemming Futtrup wrote:
> Info : Flash Manufacturer/Device: 0x00bf 0x236d
>
> Error: Could not probe bank: no QRY
>
> Try workaround w/0x555 instead of 0x55 to get QRY.
>
> Error: Could not probe bank: no QRY
>
> Error: auto_probe failed -900
>
>
>
> At this point I assumed that the concerned Flash
Hi Flemming,
--- Flemming Futtrup schrieb am Mi, 30.12.2009:
> I have run into trouble with a new board holding the SST
> 39VF6401B external flash.
>
>
> TAP: lpc2468.cpu (enabled)
>
Make sure the buffering is disabled in EMCStaticConfig0 of the LPC2468 (board
config file?).
If enabled,
David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
>
>> Should every file in the project be converted to TAB width = 4 ?
>>
>
> NO!!!
>
Why not?
I do not like tab=4 myself, but if the styleguide says to use that
tabwidth for OpenOCD, then every file should confor
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 December 2009, Antonio Borneo wrote:
>> Should every file in the project be converted to TAB width = 4 ?
>
> NO!!!
I'm inclined not to touch the patch. I'm kinda whitespace blind
and this seems to be an area with strong opinio
32 matches
Mail list logo
