First Cortex-M3 MCUs available

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:43:22 +0200, Laurent
<laurent.desnogues@nowhere-in-arm.com> wrote:

>42Bastian Schick wrote:
>>>GCC
>> 
>> Which version. An official or patched version ? I use 3.4.4
>
>    Try this one:
>
>http://www.codesourcery.com/gnu_toolchains/arm

Thanks. Thought I had to pay for their port. (Like the gcc for c166
port).

-- 
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !

On 30 Mar 2006 11:25:20 +0100 (BST), Paul Gotch 
>
>Ah that would probably be due to the MAC_MOT.sys non-plugin and play driver.

Good hint. Will try to remove this manually.

-- 
42Bastian
Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-)
Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !

Jim Granville wrote:
> ... and my original question still remains unanswered.
>
>   Also, can anyone from Luminary explain why the ARM documents that were
> on their web site are now removed ?

Does it really matter? I'm fairly sure the answer to this is "ARM asked
us to do it".

I remember an era not so long ago when you couldn't get the core
datasheets except by ordering a free demo copy of the ARM ARM on CD and
ignoring the compiler; they weren't even up on ARM's web site.

I don't recall seeing direct download links to the ARM docs on any
vendor sites; not even outside links to ARM's web site. (Not to say
they don't exist, of course).

In comp.sys.arm 42Bastian Schick <bastian42@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good hint. Will try to remove this manually.

Please research how to do this correctly via MS documentation first, I
suspect it has to be unregistered to stop Windows attempting to load it on
boot. Your mileage may vary ... on your own head be it if attempting to
remove it manually breaks Windows etc.

If you want a proper supported fix please contact ARM support with the
problem.

-p
-- 
 "What goes up must come down, ask any system administrator"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

42Bastian Schick <bastian42@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks. Thought I had to pay for their port. (Like the gcc for c166
> port).

The situation with respect to that port is interesting.

It's vaguely possible that they could dump the intermediate respresentation
from GCC and pass that through a closed source back end without violating
the GPL. However if they've made modifications to any part of GCC itself
then they must make an offer of the source to any one they have distributed
a binary to. They are perfectly entitled to only distribute that binary by
selling it.

However they then cannot stop you distributing the modified GCC source to
anyone else, they can only stop you redistributing their separate closed
source components.

The Code Sourcery GCCs are downloadable in both source and binary form and
as I mentioned periodically get folded back into the official mainline GCC.

-p
-- 
 "What goes up must come down, ask any system administrator"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:41:33 +1200, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.co.nz> wrote:

>  Also, can anyone from Luminary explain why the ARM documents that were 
>on their web site are now removed ?

A person from ARM said "because they are preliminary". Urk!

There seem to be times when "upper" layers at ARM don't listen to the
people at the coalface. The same was also true before the introduction
of commodity ARM7 parts. I suspect that ARM, as opposed to Luminary,
are chasing very high volume *core* design ins at this stage.

I wish Luminary well.

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

How do we interface gdb to the cortex-m3? I understand existing
Wigglers don't work. Does anyone sell Wiggers that do work with it?

Eric wrote:
> How do we interface gdb to the cortex-m3? I understand existing
> Wigglers don't work. Does anyone sell Wiggers that do work with it?

The Cortex-M3 has two debug interfaces - a traditional 4-wire JTAG
interface (TCK, TMS, TDI and TDO), and a single-wire debug (SWD)
interface. Someone at the Luminary forum reported that they
successfully used a standard Wiggler with the 4-wire interface.
The SWD on the other hand might be too much for a simple device like a
Wiggler to handle.

To use GDB, you'd need something that translates e.g. the GDB remote
protocol into the low-level JTAG signals. There's a RDI-GDB stub
available for some of the commercial debuggers, maybe you could use one
of these.

Regards,

Dominic

<dominic.rath@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1143797541.796119.42150@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Eric wrote:
>> How do we interface gdb to the cortex-m3? I understand existing
>> Wigglers don't work. Does anyone sell Wiggers that do work with it?
>
> The Cortex-M3 has two debug interfaces - a traditional 4-wire JTAG
> interface (TCK, TMS, TDI and TDO), and a single-wire debug (SWD)
> interface. Someone at the Luminary forum reported that they
> successfully used a standard Wiggler with the 4-wire interface.
> The SWD on the other hand might be too much for a simple device like a
> Wiggler to handle.
>
> To use GDB, you'd need something that translates e.g. the GDB remote
> protocol into the low-level JTAG signals. There's a RDI-GDB stub
> available for some of the commercial debuggers, maybe you could use one
> of these.

I think the CodeSourcery/Luminary Micro setup allows GDB to talk directly to 
the dev kit over a USB interface.  No need for a wiggler for that particular 
setup.

Regards,
Richard.

http://www.FreeRTOS.org
*Now for ARM CORTEX M3*

Dominic,

Do you think your OpenOCD will work with these chips? Do you think the
Cortex-M3 4-wire JTAG interface is compatible with older ARM7TDMI JTAG
interfaces?

I hope we can get Olimex or someone else to make low cost dev boards.
I'd really like to play with these devices.

Eric