RE: [patch v9 0/4] JTAG driver introduction

[Oleksandr Shamray <oleksandrs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geert.uytterhoeven@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:geert.uytterhoeven@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Geert Uytterhoeven
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: Oleksandr Shamray <oleksandrs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Arnd Bergmann
> <arnd@xxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> openbmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx>; Jiri Pirko
> <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Tobias Klauser <tklauser@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mec@xxxxxxxxx; Vadim Pasternak
> <vadimp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; system-sw-low-level <system-sw-low-
> level@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; openocd-devel-
> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David S. Miller
> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> linux-spi <linux-spi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [patch v9 0/4] JTAG driver introduction
> 
> Hi Oleksandr,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Oleksandr Shamray
> <oleksandrs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> [My attention was drawn by
> >> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flw
> >> n.net
> >>
> %2FArticles%2F734440%2F&data=02%7C01%7Coleksandrs%40mellanox.com%7
> >>
> C97b8ba88686a42daaace08d5064b92eb%7Ca652971c7d2e4d9ba6a4d149256f
> >>
> 461b%7C0%7C0%7C636421844026854216&sdata=TeHD4a3%2FBN6a5XG3Jizf5
> >> pmsyJHJjzkEzkpnqsXC6S0%3D&reserved=0]
> >> [CC linux-spi, which was never included, while linux-serial was]
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Oleksandr Shamray
> >> <oleksandrs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > When a need raise up to use JTAG interface for system's devices
> >> > programming or CPU debugging, usually the user layer application
> >> > implements jtag protocol by bit-bang or using a proprietary
> >> > connection to vendor hardware.
> >> > This method can be slow and not generic.
> >> >
> >
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> >
> >> > Initial version provides the system calls set for:
> >> > - SIR (Scan Instruction Register, IEEE 1149.1 Data Register scan);
> >> > - SDR (Scan Data Register, IEEE 1149.1 Instruction Register scan);
> >> > - RUNTEST (Forces the IEEE 1149.1 bus to a run state for a specified
> >> >   number of clocks.
> >> >
> >> > SoC which are not equipped with JTAG master interface, can be built
> >> > on top of JTAG core driver infrastructure, by applying bit-banging
> >> > of TDI, TDO, TCK and TMS pins within the hardware specific driver.
> >>
> >> Or by using an SPI master?
> >>
> >
> > I think it depends on how flexible the SPI interface is. If you can
> > set it to transfer from 1 to n bits at a time, and you control the TMS
> > line in software, you should be able to use it. If the SPI interface
> > can only transfer a multiple of 8 bits at a time, then in general it would not be
> suitable for JTAG.
> 
> Sure, that depends on the actual SPI master interface.
> But I guess you can write a generic JTAG-over-SPI driver, and use a tms-gpios
> property in DT to specify how to control TMS.
> 

Yes, this is a good idea for SoC which are not equipped with JTAG hardware.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-
> m68k.org
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����)��jg��������ݢj����G�������j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥