On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Dave Hylands wrote: > On 9/26/07, Colin O'Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > I propose a counter-argument: it makes no sense for *the user* to want to > > > program a single fuse byte. > > > > I agree with Eric 100% here. If you are going to be setting the fuse bytes, > > you > > *must* set them all. Otherwise you are assuming the current state of fuse > > bytes. Sure they *should* be default, but if someone else had their hands on > > the chip it might change. That's the sorta scenario where two months down > > the > > road stuff stops working, and you can't figure out why... > > Perhaps, what should be included is a set of fuse bytes and a > corresponding mask. This would allow the program to set just the bits > it was interested in, rather than being required to set all of the > bits.
He might not do it because it allows something he wants to forbid. How about eliminating the surprise issue this way: Include the masks in the elf file. Declare that a well-made tool will not accept a mask other than all-ones unless explicitly told to. A bondage and discipline tool will not accept a mask other than all-ones. Whatever is done, don't use default fuse values. Default fuse values will produce surprises. -- Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Horse guts never lie." -- Cherek Bear-Shoulders _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
