Re: [avrdude-dev] Butterfly (was: Before a release...)

[Jan-Hinnerk Reichert]

On Thursday 20 November 2003 11:32, Michael Mayer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 00:30:47 +0100, Jan-Hinnerk Reichert wrote:

> > Nevertheless, the modified avr910.c looks good at first glance. I
> > volunteer for testing the new code on a avr910 (haven't got a
> > butterfly), if you could send a working patch.
>
> Yes, thank you.

I have tested the code with my (self-written) AVR910-programmer and it 
works fine. Can't say anything about the Butterfly functionality.

A first walk through the diff shows nothing that changes the behaviour 
for a regular AVR910-programmer.

However, I still think the patch could backfire. AFAIK, there are many 
patched versions of the AVR910 out there. If any of them uses the 'b' 
command for some own improvements, we could loose syncronisation on 
these. And we don't want to lose users with broken programmers, do 
we?

Do avoid this. we could add a subtype-parameter to the prommer 
definition.

programmer
  id    = "avr910";
  desc  = "Atmel Low Cost Serial Programmer";
  type  = avr910;
  subtype = avr910;
;

programmer
  id    = "butterfly";
  desc  = "Atmel Butterfly Development Board";
  type  = avr910;
  subtype = butterfly;
;

BTW: I don't understand the hype about the Butterfly. Nevertheless, if 
people want it, we should comply ;-)

/Jan-Hinnerk