01:46 <Hammdist> anyone knows if it's possible to set the serial of an ft232h via openocd or some other linux tool?

01:52 <Hammdist> my situation is I have two boards I want to write programs to, and hence two adapters. unfortunately the manufacturer has not operatively set the iserial field of the usb descriptor. is there a way for openocd to discriminate them by bus and device id?

02:09 <Hammdist> https://github.com/openocd-org/openocd/blob/ba16fdc1c645bda82adb5a06b4403e7501e150c4/src/jtag/drivers/ftdi.c#L663 this line seems to indicate it may be supported to do this. still looking into how

02:11 <Hammdist> this seems like it should work: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58072009/how-to-interpret-tcl-command-in-openocd-manual will try it

02:20 <Hammdist> worked

02:25 <Hammdist> so apparently changing the serial can be done with ft_prog from ftdi but it seems it only runs under windows. I still wonder if openocd might not be able to do it ...

06:55 <PaulFertser> Hammdist: there's libftdi and it has the eeprom changing tool.

06:55 <PaulFertser> Hammdist: or you can identify by bus, yes.

13:18 <Hammdist> ok thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. this time I just used a windows laptop to run ft_prog on the adapters

18:26 <balrog> Heya, I asked about 7472 and 4284 the other day (both pertaining to remote_jtag); can someone take a look at these?

18:27 <balrog> 7472 has been rebased and should be ready for review; should I rebase 4284?

18:48 <zapb__> borneoa___, ah, I see :)

19:42 <PaulFertser> balrog: if a patch can be cherry-picked cleanly to latest master then you do not need to rebase it.

19:43 <balrog> 4284 is showing merge conflict

19:44 <PaulFertser> balrog: it probably means nothing if it naturally depends on another not yet applied patch.

22:42 <borneoa___> balrog: I have reviewed 7472. I will merge it next weekend. 4284 must be rebased because it doesn't apply on master, either with or without 7472; plus there is one comment from Tim in the Gerrit log that should be addressed before proceeding.

22:44 <borneoa___> balrog: I suspect that checkpatch will complain on 4248 due to "if(EOF==fflush(...))". In case, swap the two operands of ==