Evaluation Kit Debugger Region Architecture for Multi-Processor Debugging
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional microcontroller evaluation kits lack sufficient capacity to evaluate both internal and external system processors using debugger devices, necessitating a solution for effective debugging and evaluation.
Innovation Solution
An electronic device architecture with distinct regions for system processors, primary devices, secondary devices, and debugger units, allowing for multiple debugging modes based on jumper settings to connect and operate with various debugging devices and systems.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If conventional microcontroller evaluation kits are used, then the device structure is simple, but the capacity to evaluate both internal and external system processors is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The evaluation kit is designed with multi-functional capability to evaluate both internal system processors (integrated within the evaluation kit) and external system processors (separate from the evaluation kit). The debugger device can switch between debugging the internal SP, external SP, or primary device, providing universal debugging functionality across multiple targets and modes.
Solution Approach 2:
The evaluation kit is divided into distinct functional regions: an SP region for the internal system processor, a primary device region for external devices, a secondary device region for additional devices, and a debugger region for debugging operations. This segmentation allows each region to operate independently while maintaining overall system versatility.
2Adaptability or versatility
If multiple debugging modes are implemented, then the debugging options are increased, but the device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The evaluation kit implements dynamic reconfigurability through jumper settings that allow users to select between three debugging modes: first debug mode for debugging the internal SP, second debug mode for debugging the external SP, and third debug mode for debugging the primary device. This dynamic configuration enables the system to adapt its debugging capabilities based on the selected mode without requiring separate dedicated hardware for each mode.
3Productivity
If standardized and flexible evaluation kits are created, then rapid prototyping is enabled, but manufacturing complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The evaluation kit utilizes jumper settings as configurable parameters to define different debugging modes and operational states. By changing these simple physical parameters (jumper positions) rather than requiring complex reconfiguration of hardware connections or circuitry, the system enables rapid prototyping while maintaining manufacturing simplicity. The underlying hardware structure remains standardized and manufacturable.
Data Source
AI summary
Present implementations include an electronic device with a system processor (SP) region connectable to an SP, a primary device region connectable to a first electronic device, and a secondary device region disposed between the SP device region and the primary device region, and connectable to a second electronic device. Present implementations further include a debugger region including a debugger unit and disposed adjacent to the primary device region and the secondary device region. Present implementations also include obtaining a debug selection including a debugger selection and a system processor (SP) selection, entering a first debug mode in accordance with a determination that the debugger selection satisfies a debugger criterion and the SP selection satisfies an SP criterion, and entering a second debug mode in accordance with a determination that the debugger selection satisfies the debugger criterion and the SP selection does not satisfy the SP criterion, and entering a third debug mode in accordance with a determination that the debugger selection does not satisfy the debugger criterion.