From: Pavel C. <ch...@as...> - 2008-06-27 11:14:54
|
Hello Michael and Øyvind, Michael Schwingen wrote: >> messing around with this. Ideally they should just specify the >> target via the target library and then live happily ever after without >> worrying about OpenOCD again :-) If end users never mess >> around with the scripting language > > I don't really see this happening. At work, I use a BDI2000 on different targets, and I usually have to write a config file that matches my hardware. I agree on this... modification of a script is often necessary to make it work with given hw. >> - write a flash driver in tcl. A flash driver consists of "a few peeks >> and pokes". Could a tcl script handle this for non-standard parts? I think this would perform really bad. Flash drivers without semi-hosting are slow on high latency JTAG interfaces even if written in C. >> The eCos + ocl flash drivers have had zero visible success. Sad but true, however, I am planning to do some more work on this. >> - write variant target support in tcl. The slight arm7/9 variants >> could perhaps be written in tcl? I have to say, that I do not like such idea at all, I doubt that end users would cope with TCL (or anything else) to create target variant support. This is rather unlikely. And for developers - mixture of two languages does not bring benefits, it would just make things more complicated. > I do not really see the benefit of splitting the source code for developers into two languages. Having a full-fledged scripting language for configuration is great, > however, if I need to learn another language to add/modify/patch openocd code (like the CFI flash driver), I will be reluctant to do so. > Another problem: how do you debug a mixture of C and script code? Currently, I can start up gdb on openocd and see everything that happens. My words, I do not see a benefit. However, scripting for configuration is fine (but not a necessity from my point of view). Regards, Pavel |