[avrdude-dev] [bug #30559] Ft232 bit-bang support

[Roger Wolff]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #30559 (project avrdude):

Rene, thank you for checking things out (compile test) on Windows! I forgot
about that part... 

I have now also patched serjtag (where I don't know where the hardware comes
from.... I have tried googling if maybe I can make the hardware on short
notice, but no such luck. It is simply mentioned on the pages that link to the
patches that I have ported here.)

My guess is that serjtag was copied by someone into ft245r, and then modified
there. I guess the patches could be split: the serjtag driver should be
considered less tested as I don't have the hardware to test it. (nor can I
find documentation that tells me about this). 

Rene, can you also perform functional tests?

I have removed the "report progress" calls from the programming loops. This is
apparently now handled outside the loop in the driver. 

Both ft245r.c and serjtag.c have "generic" paged_write functions that are used
for eeprom writing. I think I saw some coding errors in that part and wondered
how it could have passed my testing I claimed I had done below. The answer is
that those are called (in my testing) with m->paged set to false, so that code
was never executed. The question is: Can non-flash memory in AVRs be paged? 

If not, that would allow me (us) to remove some error-prone (and for me
difficult to test) code..... 

Attached is the latest version and this time generated with svn diff.... (My
understanding of svn has moved from cut-pasting examples found on the web to:
I know two commands! :-) (they are: svn diff and svn add) ). 




(file #24840)
    _______________________________________________________

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: bw_ft245_svn2.patch            Size:47 KB


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?30559>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/