[Top][All Lists]

[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

From: Henrik Brix Andersen
Subject: Re: [avrdude-dev] Is the fallback to the generic ISP command really useful?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:11:46 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

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
> method?

I have always wondered why we had that fallback by default -
especially since I started looking into adding support for USB DFU
into avrdude.

> 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>

Attachment: pgp7gxp4kZUdt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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