On 2010-10-29 11:21, freddie_cho...@op.pl wrote:
> Yep! Please send patches. I will also.
I'll wait for maintainters' opinions, because if they don't like the idea of
separate cfg files any patch in that area would be just a waste of time.
Is there really no interest in such change?
4\/3!
"Peter Stuge" napisał(a):
> Unless there is a way to tell devices apart.
Usually there is (; Sometimes some more logic is required, but generally that
is possible (JTAG ID, special registers with ID, flash sizes, etc.)
> > BTW I do not prefer single file for whole family,
>
> Why not? No
oyvind.har...@zylin.com napisał(a):
> I think that OpenOCD should stay away from GUI's and focus on
> the core functionality. Just like GDB does. GDB isn't a GUI,
> but it *supports* GUIs.
Sure, I also think that OpenOCD does not need an embedded GUI, but I hope that
someday someone will make a
"Peter Stuge" napisał(a):
> You must have missed the patches.
I don't think so. SWD is being talked about for ~2 years, in the meantime
SWD-only chips appeared on the market (LPC1xxx, LPC13xx, etc.), commercial and
free toolchains support it already, OpenOCD is (IMHO) not even close... Sure,
"Xiaofan Chen" napisał(a):
> Yet another solution is to have a generic cfg file with minimum
> 4KB of SRAM but allow user to overwrite the generic config
> file with bigger working area for better performance.
>
> Is this possible?
Of course it is possible, but how many users will know tha
"Peter Stuge" napisał(a):
> Freddie Chopin wrote:
> I was considering this too. I strongly prefer a single file for the
> entire family if possible, but it should not cost very much, if any,
> performance.
But in this situation single file costs performance, so that's not a good idea.
BTW I
