Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:55:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [tip:x86/doc] x86/doc: mini-howto for using earlyprintk=dbgp |
| |
* Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 15:59 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > - a.) Host/target system needs to have USB debug port capability. > > > > + a.) You will need two USB ports. One on the client/console system and one on > > > > + the target system. > > > > + > > > > + b.) The client/console and target USB ports must have the debug port > > > > + capability. > > > > > > Is that correct on the (ugh, I think that the naming/terminology is > > > still mucked up, but you didn't do that) host/target system? > > > > > > On the client/console (which I would call the host and I would call the > > > "Host/target" here just the Target system), a USB debug port is needed, > > > but on the Host/target, it should just look like a USB device. > > > At least that was the intent AFAIK/IIRC. No? > > > > > > > >From the rest of document I assumed Host/target was referring to both > > sides of the connection. So you would need USB on both sides for this > > thing to work. I assumed Client/console was just the host. I guess that > > is all kind of confusing tho .. > > The term "Host" is too confusing to be used here; it has too > many other meanings. "Target" is good.
I used Host/Target for that reason, consistently so. The combo gives us the best of both worlds.
> "Client" is probably okay too, but I don't like "Console" so > much because both machines will have a console. "Debugging > console" is more accurate but also more cumbersome.
I used client/console term for that reason.
> > The document indicates you need this one capability on your > > USB port in addition to the USB device (check the complete > > document for how to find the capability). So both host and > > target need this one capability, and then you also need the > > USB device for the whole thing to work. > > In fact the original document was rather clear about this; it > says only that the target machine needs the debug capability. > The client machine uses its normal USB driver and treats the > debugging cable as a normal USB serial device.
yes.
btw., i think this document is being over-engineered. Significantly so.
Ingo
| |