[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avrdude-dev] Is the fallback to the generic ISP command really usef
Henrik Brix Andersen
Re: [avrdude-dev] Is the fallback to the generic ISP command really useful?
Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:11:46 +0100
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:53:02PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> I generally question the value of that fallback, unless someone can
> convince me about it being useful. It would be fine by me, if the
> respective programmer doesn't support their own read and write byte
> methods, to use avr_read_byte_default() and avr_write_byte_default()
> in place. But what sense does it make to retry an individual
> programmer's signalled failure using that same programmer's cmd
I have always wondered why we had that fallback by default -
especially since I started looking into adding support for USB DFU
> If people think the current way of doing things is really useful, I'd
> at least like to make the "cmd" method optional. Currently, the JTAG
> ICE implementations already fill in a dummy for that method that just
> writes a message to stderr, and is never supposed to be called at all.
> The change would then be to skip the above mentioned diversion to
> avr_read_byte_default() and avr_write_byte_default() if the programmer
> in question doesn't support the "cmd" method, and rather return that
> programmer's error from its "read_byte" and "write_byte" methods.
Making it optional seems like a good compromise to me.
Henrik Brix Andersen <address@hidden>
Description: PGP signature