Forums

JTAG for Analog Devices SHARC 21469

Started by Mauritz Jameson January 25, 2014
On 2/2/2014 9:20 PM, Al Clark wrote:
> I'm not sure that having all the JTAG details would really be > that helpful. They were published for the SHARC for the 2106x > and 2116x. The only people I know that tried to take advantage > of it was Mike Rosing, an old compdsp'er and his brother, > whose name escapes me now. They made a product called > Beastrider which I resold for awhile. > > The hardware interface is really not that special for any JTAG > device. The real effort is good integration with the dev > tools. I don't think it should be considered much different > than a compiler or linker from this perspective. > > Keep in mind, I am talking about the proprietary extensions > that ADI and most other manufacturers use to support > emulation. The original purpose of JTAG was for boundary scan > testing which is documented by ADI. > > I think the original poster was actually complaining that ADI > wasn't sharing schematics of their debug agent (on board ICE > module). It is true that the specifics of the JTAG extensions > are not published. > > When we decided to build our dspFlash programmer, I thought it > would be easy. It has the worst dev cost versus return of any > of our standard products. The catch is that there are DSP > variations for different targets and way too many flash > variations. We theoretically support hundreds of thousands of > possible combinations, most which we have never been able to > test. We sometimes fall victim to bad signal integrity on the > target boards or the adapters that are used on test fixtures. > > So if you are thinking of building your own tools, you are > really doing it as a labor of love, it is MUCH, MUCH cheaper > to buy tools. > > I think maybe the reason ADI stopped with the details is to > avoid relatively useless tech support issues that do not > facilitate the sell of cheaps which is how they make their > money. > > No doubt, the other processor companies have similar issues. > > Al Clark > www.danvillesignal.com
I mostly don't disagree with what you've said... ... but there are times when I'd like to integrate the JTAG programmer and in-circuit emulation onto the target hardware. In my mind, I separate the JTAG programming hardware which can be generic and inexpensive from the programming software. I can do that for other manufacturers devices. In the end, ADI makes their money selling chips. But you can't do that without /decent/ tools. IOW selling tools will never make you money - *on the tools*. I think I will disagree with the tech support issue you've raised. Many companies have been rewarded by supporting the open source community. It is an issue that can be managed... Rob.
Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> wrote in
news:lcnatj$q9o$1@speranza.aioe.org: 

> On 2/2/2014 9:20 PM, Al Clark wrote: >> I'm not sure that having all the JTAG details would really >> be that helpful. They were published for the SHARC for the >> 2106x and 2116x. The only people I know that tried to take >> advantage of it was Mike Rosing, an old compdsp'er and his >> brother, whose name escapes me now. They made a product >> called Beastrider which I resold for awhile. >> >> The hardware interface is really not that special for any >> JTAG device. The real effort is good integration with the >> dev tools. I don't think it should be considered much >> different than a compiler or linker from this perspective. >> >> Keep in mind, I am talking about the proprietary >> extensions that ADI and most other manufacturers use to >> support emulation. The original purpose of JTAG was for >> boundary scan testing which is documented by ADI. >> >> I think the original poster was actually complaining that >> ADI wasn't sharing schematics of their debug agent (on >> board ICE module). It is true that the specifics of the >> JTAG extensions are not published. >> >> When we decided to build our dspFlash programmer, I >> thought it would be easy. It has the worst dev cost versus >> return of any of our standard products. The catch is that >> there are DSP variations for different targets and way too >> many flash variations. We theoretically support hundreds >> of thousands of possible combinations, most which we have >> never been able to test. We sometimes fall victim to bad >> signal integrity on the target boards or the adapters that >> are used on test fixtures. >> >> So if you are thinking of building your own tools, you are >> really doing it as a labor of love, it is MUCH, MUCH >> cheaper to buy tools. >> >> I think maybe the reason ADI stopped with the details is >> to avoid relatively useless tech support issues that do >> not facilitate the sell of cheaps which is how they make >> their money. >> >> No doubt, the other processor companies have similar >> issues. >> >> Al Clark >> www.danvillesignal.com > > I mostly don't disagree with what you've said... > > ... but there are times when I'd like to integrate the JTAG > programmer and in-circuit emulation onto the target > hardware. >
You might like our dspblok products. We have "ICE" versions that are pin compatible.
> In my mind, I separate the JTAG programming hardware which > can be generic and inexpensive from the programming > software. I can do that for other manufacturers devices. > > In the end, ADI makes their money selling chips. But you > can't do that without /decent/ tools. IOW selling tools > will never make you money - *on the tools*.
That is my view also.
> > I think I will disagree with the tech support issue you've > raised. Many companies have been rewarded by supporting the > open source community. It is an issue that can be > managed... > > Rob. > >
With respect to the support question, I don't actually know that this is their reasoning. I just know that taking advantage of the JTAG port is much more work than it would seem at first glance. If you need more info about the specific JTAG registers, you might just ask them. I don't know what they will say. Al --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com