|
Hello Kenny,
Welcome to the discussion! I would be very curious to
look at your vision document and see what additional requirements you have for
description of registers and such as well. Mostly I am interested to know
if the requirements specification that I wrote which is posted at the bottom of
this page:
Is sufficient for your needs. Note that this
particular specification has nothing to do with SPIRIT yet. Rather it is
just requirements for description of boards, cores, native registers (core
registers), memory mapped registers, etc.
I think that a couple of different things are going to
happen in parallel in this project:
1) A set of Java interfaces will be developed that provide
a file format independent presentation of all of this information.
Implementations of these interfaces can be provided that can parse a new file
format that is standard (e.g. SPIRIT) as well as any legacy proprietary file
format that TI or whomever else use in current products.
2) We will develop some common tooling that uses those
interfaces, e.g. Eclipse views that allow you to display those target
interfaces.
3) We are planning on putting together additions to the
existing SPIRIT specification needed for debug specific needs and propose
them as extensions to the current standard. There is a willingness on the
part of the SPIRIT community to do this.
Any comments and participation are of course
welcomed.
Note
that you can see the archive of discussions on this web
site:
If you look around for "target
descriptions" or "SPIRIT" in subject lines you will see where we have been
so far.
cheers,
Aaron
--
Aaron Spear
Debug Tools
Architect/Staff Engineer
Mentor Graphics
aaron_spear@xxxxxxxxxx
303-679-8457
From: Oberhuber, Martin
[mailto:Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006
5:01 AM
To: Aron, Kenneth; Spear, Aaron
Cc: Target
Management developer discussions; Device Debugging developer
discussions
Subject: RE: Eclipse Target Management / Target
Configuration project
Hello Kenny,
your request comes at a good time, I
think!
There has been quite some discussion on generalized
target descriptions for debuggers,
most of it on the device debugging subproject and driven
by Aaron Spear of Accelerated
Technology / Mentor Graphics. We are looking towards
adopting standards from the
SPIRIT consortium for hardware descriptions, and
providing input to SPIRIT for requirements
that we think are needed for driving debuggers from these
descriptions.
Aaron owns the Target Descriptions technology sub-group,
which is shared between the
Target Management and Device Debugging
projects:
While there has been quite some progress regarding file
formats for generalized hardware
descriptions, we have just recently come to a point where
we need to think about how
to provide those descriptions to the tools
eventually:
Part of this has been annotated by TI's Martin
Swiezawski:
Kenny, your input to this group will certainly be highly appreciated
and valuable.
Please go forward explaining your vision, what you have and what you
want to achieve.
I'm
sure Aaron and others on the group will get in touch with you
directly.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber -
WindRiver, Austria
+43(662)457915-85
Martin &
David,
I’m a project manager with Texas
Instruments’ software tools support group in Houston, Texas. We provide the compilers, linkers,
JTAG emulators, target content libraries, IDE, etc. for all TI parts. For
some time, my dept has been kicking around the idea for a “unified target
description” component that would provide a debug tool set “everything it
needs to know” about a system’s on-board debug resources, based on data
artifacts generated by the chip design team’s
workflow.
I was assigned to ID
stakeholders and gather requests, in the process of which one of them
pointed me to your subproject. This is interesting, as our department is
adopting Eclipse as an “equal” to our own proprietary product, Code Composer
Studio.
I’ve been encouraged to adopt
open standards whenever possible, and contribute what we develop freely (as
long as it doesn’t disclose TI IP, etc.). What I have so far is a Vision
spec and a good set of stakeholder requests from groups internal to TI. I
also have a good working relationship with several of the design teams, and
they’re open to providing me system content data generated by their tooling.
Currently it’s limited to register / bitfield descriptions, but everything’s
on the table.
I believe we have mutually
compatible goals, and would like more information on the current state of
your target description work, and roadmap specific to that. I’m not as
interested in the connectivity / management aspects
presently.
Thanks,
--Kenny
Aron
Project Manager,
SDO
Texas
Instruments
Incorporated
| 