On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:49:07AM -0400, Colin O'Flynn wrote: > Sounds good with me - though it should probably be done as another > patch on top of this patch I assume? > > So for now should this patch go in, then another patch be applied? > This one fixes some other issues and is good to have for now IMHO.
Yes, I believe so. I think your follow-up patch to the initial implementation is entirely reasonable. This second idea would merely not explicitly require the -u option in order to allow fuse changes. I think that having to specify -u to change fuses be a complaint. Also, I think folks will begin to just include it on their command lines by default, and thus will not benefit from the utility of safemode. By making it so that one can program their fuses when requested and only engage safemode when fuse bytes end up changed which were _not_ requested, then that makes safemode truly a safety net that stays out of the way until it is needed. Win win. If someone _really_ doesn't want safemode, they can specify -u. Otherwise, it should never need to be explicitly disabled. If you want me to do the bit-mask thing, just let me know, and I can give that a shot, if you can work your prior patch in. There may be some conflicts due to other changes, namely the -q -q support I recently committed so your patch might not apply cleanly any longer. I don't know what your schedule is like. I think this should go in before the release, which I'd like to target for early to mid this coming week. -Brian -- Brian Dean ATmega128 based MAVRIC controllers http://www.bdmicro.com/ _______________________________________________ avrdude-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev
