RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] Target/Board description requirements: your thoughtsre

["Burton, Felix" <Felix.Burton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Aaron,

Sorry for the late response.  Here are my questions/comments:

3.1:  Does Memory Mapped registers include I/O ports like 68k use to
have?  I assume the I/O space should be considered to be another memory
space, right?

3.2.10: Having bitfield be below registers does not allow bitfields to
cross multiple registers.  What if bitfield are made a top level notion
that can refer to one or more registers?  Another solution would be to
be able to create "virtual" registers from one or more physical ones.

3.3.1: I think this should be moved to the common section and be
optional.

3.4.1: Can there be multiple "base address"?

4.1.4: I don't understand "2^32 + 1  == 0x1 0000 0000".  Should it not
be "2^32 == 0x1 0000 0000"?

Thanks,
Felix

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Spear, Aaron
> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:32 AM
> To: dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; dsdp-dd-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [dsdp-tm-dev] Target/Board description requirements: 
> your thoughtsrequested
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> After the Toronto meeting I went ahead and took my presentation, along
> with notes that I took from everyone while we were brainstorming, and
> cobbled together a first pass requirements document regarding target
> information needed for debugging purposes.  Doug has posted it in the
> downloads section of the Wiki site at:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/DSDP/DD/Spirit.  
> 
> Note that the purpose of this document is purely requirements 
> gathering
> at this point.  I suppose the idea that it will be XML might 
> be implied,
> but I tried to steer away from explicitly saying how anything 
> should be
> done.
> 
> The document in its current form has a first cut at information about
> memory maps and registers, and a bit of information about 
> cores (nowhere
> near complete).  It is also missing scan chain information, so that
> would be great if folks could speak to that.
> 
> Here is my plan for moving forward:
> 1) solicit feedback from everyone in this community regarding the
> requirements themselves
> 2) add these additional requirements to the document
> 3) goto 1 as until we stabilize...
> 4) Approach SPIRIT with these requirements to see where we go from
> here...
> 
> My colleague John Wilson, who has been Mentor Graphics 
> representative on
> the SPIRIT steering committee, tells me that they are having a SPIRIT
> roadmap meeting the first week of March to decide on future directions
> for SPIRIT.  He also said that ARM has apparently already pushed for
> debugger topics to be a part of the agenda, which is great.  (Anthony,
> was that you that introduced that?)  Yes, today is March 1st, so we
> might have missed the opportunity to actually submit something for the
> meeting, but this document might help the discussion.
> 
> I think it would be great if we could have a tangible set of
> requirements finished, and from that create a document to 
> present to the
> SPIRIT community the set of information that we see as 
> missing from the
> SPIRIT spec to make it truly useful for debugging.
> 
> the floor is open!
> Aaron
> 
> --
> Aaron Spear
> Debug Tools Architect/Staff Engineer
> Accelerated Technology a Mentor Graphics Division
> _______________________________________________
> dsdp-tm-dev mailing list
> dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-tm-dev
>