Open madchutney opened 2 years ago
Adding a UUID would be fine and quite handy in certain situations (I fully support the addition), but it must not be a replacement for Target Board Vendor
and Target Board Name
. Those are necessary for situations where there is not a CMSIS-Pack board definitions—which is most existing boards.
Example: The micro:bit boards use Target Board Vendor
and Target Board Name
in their on-board DAPLink firmware, but there will probably not be a micro:bit CMSIS-Pack with board definitions any time soon.
Target Board Vendor
and Target Board Name
are also immensely useful to present user visible information about a connect board without needing a whole CMSIS Pack database already installed.
We must keep in mind the vast usage of CMSIS DAP outside the realm of CMSIS Packs.
Regarding board revisions, we need to also add a Target Board Revision
DAP_info key. This can be user visible, as well as being used for programmatic purposes when there is not a CMSIS Pack for the board.
CMSIS DAP_Info (v2.1) fields (
Target Board Vendor
andTarget Board Name
) can currently be used to identify a board and map it to a board definition in a CMSIS pack (if provided by the board firmware).It is proposed that:
Target Board ID
field is added to theDAP_Info
fields.Target Board ID
is a UUID.Target Board Vendor
andTarget Board Name
is deprecated for programmatic board identification purposes.Target Board ID
can be added to the CMSIS pack board definition.This proposal has several advantages:
DAP_Info
fields.