Re: [UrJTAG-dev] Patch: proposal for direct bit manipulation of jtag signals (preparation)

[Sebastian H. <hes...@im...>]

Waschk,Kolja wrote:
> thanks for the work! This is really missing in UrJTAG yet. The code
> looks clean and useful (you should put your own name in the copyright
> header though). What do you think about the comment regarding the
> command name?

My intention using "direct" was that "signal","tap", and "jtag" are
already used in urjtag for other stuff and that will cause confusion. I
used direct only because I wrote "set/get jtag signals directly.." in
the short help of the command and thats the next word not already used.
Feel free to change it to another more meaningful name. ;)

I just copied code from other parts of the source so it still contains
the original copyright, too. Again, I agree to have my name there if it
gets into the svn but accept any other name. That modification was
really easy after Arnim explaned how everything works.

As soon as I clean my code at work I will submit more patches regarding
supported flashes and ixp460. But dont expect me to submit them soon.

Cheers,
   Sebastian