avrdude-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [avrdude-dev] Cleaning up of avr910.c


From: Theodore A. Roth
Subject: Re: [avrdude-dev] Cleaning up of avr910.c
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:00:01 -0800 (PST)


On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Jan-Hinnerk Reichert wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> since we have a little time without CVS archive, I thought we could do
> discussion about further cleanups.
>
> I don't want any of changes suggested to below to go in before the
> release. They are either cosmetic changes or cleanups.
>
> --------------------------
> /* These two defines are only for debugging. Will remove them once it
> starts
>    working. */
>
> #define show_func_info() \
>   fprintf(stderr, "%s: line %d: called %s()\n", \
>           __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__)
>
> #define no_show_func_info()
> -------------------------
> So, can we remove them now?

I think it's safe to say it has outlived it's usefulness. Rip away.

>
> In avr910_write_setup() there is a strange workaround form Ted.
> Does anyone know if it is still needed or on which programmer firmware
> this was neccessary.
> I also believe that sending "y" here is not good, since it is
> specified to have an argument. However, the AVR910 returns an error
> and doesn't get the argument ;-(

When I wrote that, the firmware I was using didn't indicate that 'y'
took an argument. Here's the the firmware code:

;**** Clear LED ****

w6:     cpi     u_data,0x79     ; 'y' Clear LED (ignored)
        brne    w7
        rjmp    put_ret

but looking at this:

waitcmd:rcall   getc            ; while (getc() == ESC) {};
        cpi     u_data,0x1b
        breq    waitcmd

It should probably just send an 'ESC' instead of the 'y'. I don't
remember why I used 'y'.

>
> Now, the cosmetic stuff. IMHO, there is too much output when using the
> AVR910.
>
> I don't want to see a list of all supported chips every time I use
> avrdude. IMHO, it should only be done if no chip is selected or if
> chip is not supported (or perhaps if verbose is set to some value).

That's fine.

>
> IMHO, a progress indicator for reading signature-bits is confusing,
> because I haven't requested the read.

That's a side effect of the generic read/write design of avrdude. I
didn't like it when I saw it, but I don't think it hurts anything.

Ted Roth




reply via email to

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