Lpc2000

Hello Dave,

On Thursday 19 January 2006 20:52, derbaier wrote:
> You are right, Dominic!  By my definition your experience with ARM
> pretty much describes a "closed" standard.  If that is the current
> situation regarding RDI from, then I am completely wrong in calling it
> an "open" standard.
>
> That does raise some interesting questions though!  How did twentyone
> get it working so well for H-JTAG?  It works very well with all the
> debuggers that I have tried that claimed RDI support.  There are also
> a number of other high priced commercial debuggers in existance that
> support RDI, when you do a Google on RDI. SDT2.51, Keil, and IAR are
> the only systems that I have personally used RDI with.  I've also used
>  ARM ADS1.2, but I used Trace32 instead of an RDI debugger with that.
>
> Anyway, I apologize for classifying RDI as an "open" interface if it
> is as "closed" as it was to you, Dominic.
>
> -- Dave

There is enough information publicly available that would allow you to support 
RDI, but much of this raises legal questions. H-JTAG is different in that it 
isn't open source - if ARM only offers the RDI specs under an NDA (or some 
restrictive license that prohibits you to disclose the contained 
information), it isn't possible to use it in an open source project, but it 
may still be possible to use it in "free as in beer" software.

The fact that OpenOCD is open source has many advantages:
- if I should ever stop working on it, anyone else can continue this work
- you can use a different cable layout, just add a new cable definition
- you can add additional signals like RTCK
- I'm currently preparing support for cfi flashes using the Intel command set, 
but everyone can add support for the flash he's using
...

That's the freedom to use an open project for any purpose you want. The 
drawback is that it's difficult to support closed standards.

Regards,

Dominic