[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: Joerg Wunsch
Subject: Re: [avrdude-dev] Is the fallback to the generic ISP command really useful?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:08:07 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

As Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

> > If people think the current way of doing things is really useful,
> > I'd at least like to make the "cmd" method optional.

> Making it optional seems like a good compromise to me.

In retrospect, I think it would ultimately make more sense to rather
make the read_byte() and write_byte() methods madatory as well, and
offer avr_read_byte_default() and avr_write_byte_default() for those
(ISP) programmers that don't want to supply their own methods.  Right
now, there are already more programmers supplying their own methods
rather than those that use the ISP one.  The days when AVRDUDE was
just a little ISP-only tool are really over now.

By that, avr_read_byte() could completely go away, as it boils down to
just pgm->read_byte().  Alas, avr_write_byte() does some safemode
handling, so in order to not have to reproduce that in each individual
write_byte() method, this function would remain.

As the patch touches about the entire AVRDUDE implementation, I'd
prefer to see it reviewed by someone else before committing it to CVS.
I did make some quick tests, and it appears to work.

cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)

Attachment: avrdude-read_write.diff
Description: Text document

reply via email to

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