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

[E. Weddington]

On 20 Nov 2003 at 19:37, Jan-Hinnerk Reichert wrote:

> 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;
> ;

Can't we avoid a "subtype" and just have it it's own type?:

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


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

Agreed, agreed. ;-)

Eric