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

[Jan-Hinnerk Reichert]

On Sunday 30 November 2003 00:02, Brian Dean wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:35:10AM +0100, Jan-Hinnerk Reichert 
wrote:
> > > > Most of the duplicated functions are empty anyway. Perhaps we
> > > > should change the default-functions in "pgm.c". So, that
> > > > non-critical functions - like setting a LED - don't return an
> > > > error, if they are undefined
> > >
> > > This would be a nice thing to do. It would simplify both,
> > > avr910.c and butterfly.c.
> >
> > Has anyone else an opinion on this?
>
> Sorry for not responding sooner - I've been away for a few days.
>
> Are you asking about the proposal to implement some kind of
> 'subtype' field or the behaviour of unimplemented non-critical
> programmer functions?

[subtype vs. new programmer]

We have already agreed on a new programmer ;-)
Would you or someone else please check the new diff and apply it. I 
have no idea how this "config_gram.y"-stuff works ;-(

I would like to have it in, before my "avrdude.c"-patch, because there 
could be a conflict in updating "Makefile.am"

> Regarding the default behaviour of non-critical functions like LED
> setting - I'm all for making these be optional and perhaps
> initialized to a default function that does nothing.

Sorry for not beeing clear enough. Actually, I was talking about the 
non-critical functions.

I think we have just to change the return from pgm_default_1() in 
"pgm.c" to "0" and drop the call of pgm_default().  No big problem 
here ;-)

/Jan-Hinnerk