avrdude-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avrdude-dev] Butterfly - new patch


From: Michael Mayer
Subject: Re: [avrdude-dev] Butterfly - new patch
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:54:59 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

As mentioned before, I introduced a new programmer type called butterfly.
The patch below introduces two new files, butterfly.c and butterfly.h, which
in fact are modified copys of avr910.c and avr910.h. The main modification
is to drop the single-byte access method using the c/C and d/D command for
the new blockmode using the commands g/G.

The universal command 'u' isn't implemented by the butterfly, so I dropped
the corresponding function, too.

write_setup isn't necessary, so it is dropped, too.

Now it is possible to support the butterfly without even touching the files
for the avr910. The bottomside of this approach is the fact of duplicating
code from avr910, making it more difficult to keep code cleanups in sync.
But it can be done ;-)

The patch works against the newest CVS sources (as of 2003-11-29). Besides
butterfly.c and butterfly.h only the bare minimum set of files is touched:
ChangeLog, Makefile.am, avrdude.conf.in, config_gram.y, lexer.l

>From the ChangeLog:

2003-11-28  Michael Mayer  <address@hidden>

        * added new programmer type "butterfly":
        lexer.l: new programmer type "butterfly"
        config_gram.y: new token K_BUTTERFLY
        avrdude.conf.in: added programmer definition
        * butterfly.c, butterfly.h: cloned from avr910.?, changed to work
        with the Atmel Butterfly device
        * Makefile.am: added butterfly.[ch] to avrdude_SOURCES



On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 00:35:10 +0100, Jan-Hinnerk Reichert wrote:
> > > Most of the duplicated functions are empty anyway. Perhaps we
> > > should change the default-functions in "pgm.c". So, that
> > > non-critical functions - like setting a LED - don't return an
> > > error, if they are undefined
> >
> > This would be a nice thing to do. It would simplify both, avr910.c
> > and butterfly.c.
> 
> Has anyone else an opinion on this?
I still would like to do this, but until now nothing is changed and all the
empty functions are duplicated.


> Keep in mind that I will move some functions around at the start of 
> next week. However, I believe that "avr910.c" and other programmer 
> specific files will not be effected by this ;-)
Good ;-)

  Michael

Attachment: patch-cvs20031129-butterfly.gz
Description: Binary data


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]