|
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
|
