From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:04:11 +0400
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] BDI vs. Lauterbach
In-Reply-To: <20060410182043.73330.qmail@web32207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060410182043.73330.qmail@web32207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <443AD65B.9030908@varma-el.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Frank wrote:
> 
> --- Marco Cavallini <arm.linux@koansoftware.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Pros:
>>>      BDI - 10Mbit eth, Lauterbach - 100 Mbit.
>>>      Lauterbach scalable and simply extendable, BDI - not.
>> Lauterbach is the best choiche for both Linux and WinCE
>> targets.
>> Lauterbach have *excellent*  support too.
Why best? Because best... :)

> 
> I have introduced several of my clients to the BDI2000 and have
> yet to have a single one regret the selection.
> I have to admit though, if they lowered their price they would
> probably get more customers.
> 
> I don't understand why the have to charge $1500+ for a
> differnent cpu firmware update...

Well, nice question, but now, show me modern CPU with onboard JTAG,
in public datasheets of which described FULL set of debug commands,
not only JTAG, but onchip debug subsystem too (we all know which cost
of SoC systems with onboard usb/eth/flash). Any questions after that?

Andrey