Re: BeagleBoard Rev. B - vs. - Rev. C
Jason Kridner
the CC. This one was generic enough to send to the list by removing
the names.
On Dec 22, 2008, at 3:20 AM, XXX wrote:
>Good morning Jason, Gerald,
> In August I (& colleagues) ordered a couple of BeagleBoards Rev. B
from D/K – now I persuaded some friends to purchase some extra boards
and read a thread about
>BB rev. C vs. rev. B … In order to stream-line our work, we would
like to know the impact on the software compilation process between
Rev. C and Rev. B. ?
>
> 1. What is the impact on the software installation process between
Rev. C vs. Rev. B ?
I expect that we'll provide an updated bootloader (u-boot) that will
make it easier to avoid typing in commands over the serial port to
boot a kernel from the SD card, since the SD card will be
automatically scanned for a boot.scr file. You can simply update the
u-boot on your flash to get this functionality--it isn't related to
any change in the hardware, just the testing process.
> 2. Do you advise to wait for Rev. C BB’s ?
No, not unless you want to wait until March or have an absolute
requirement for a second USB port. You can enter the software design
contest for a chance to get one of the prototypes.
> 3. Should the current users (owners) of a Rev. B board also migrate
to Rev. C in order to keep toolchain compilation process aligned ?
No, there is full software compatibility for all on-board components.
USB host will be added and should gracefully not-work on Rev B
boards. Changes to the pin-mux for the expansion header can be put in
with #ifdef, but are not even currently in the mainline.
> 4. What is the status nowadays of the Flyswatter – OpenOCD JTAG
debugger … have the sw. issues been solved ? Is it already stable
enough for daily use ?
You can follow the status on the openocd mailing list where there has
been some on-going discussion: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/
. It is not ready for daily use, as far as I can see. It does appear
to be ready for experimental use.
Rick Altherr
On Dec 23, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Jason Kridner wrote:
>> 4. What is the status nowadays of the Flyswatter – OpenOCD JTAG
> debugger … have the sw. issues been solved ? Is it already stable
> enough for daily use ?
>
> You can follow the status on the openocd mailing list where there has
> been some on-going discussion: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/
> . It is not ready for daily use, as far as I can see. It does appear
> to be ready for experimental use.
You can follow the full discussion on the openocd list, but the
capsule summary is that we can read the IDCODE for the Icepick but do
not have enough information to feel confident in our attempts to
interact with it. After the holidays, I will be attempting to
validate that we can talk to the DAP. If that is successful, I'll
start development of the Cortex-A8 target support.
So, if you want to use JTAG debugging with OpenOCD with a BeagleBoard
target today, it isn't ready. I'm hesitant to give any time
estimates, but I will be working on it once I'm back home from the
holidays.
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Beagle Board" group.
> To post to this group, send email to discu...@beagleboard.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to beagleboard...@beagleboard.org
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beagleboard?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
Rick
Rick Altherr
On Dec 23, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Jason Kridner wrote:
> debugger … have the sw. issues been solved ? Is it already stable
> enough for daily use ?
>
> You can follow the status on the openocd mailing list where there has
> been some on-going discussion: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/openocd-development/
> . It is not ready for daily use, as far as I can see. It does appear
> to be ready for experimental use.