[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API |
Date: |
Wed, 4 Mar 2009 14:15:02 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:11 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API
>
> As Weddington, Eric wrote:
>
> > The idea is that by including this file, the .signature section of
> > the ELF file would be populated with the signature bytes that are
> > defined in the individual I/O file. This allows programming tools
> > (such as AVR Studio) the ability to compare the on-chip signature
> > with the one in the file. All the user has to do is to include the
> > header file, so there's really not much of an API.
>
> I wonder whether there's a point in using a struct rather than a
> three-byte array?
In theory, it doesn't really matter. It seems the OP (on the Freaks thread) did
a little copy and past from the fuses header file. Is there a reason you have
for the preference?
- [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Weddington, Eric, 2009/03/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Sergey A. Borshch, 2009/03/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/03/04
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API,
Weddington, Eric <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/03/04
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Weddington, Eric, 2009/03/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Joerg Wunsch, 2009/03/04
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] [RFC] Signature API, Weddington, Eric, 2009/03/19