On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:53:02PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > I generally question the value of that fallback, unless someone can > convince me about it being useful. It would be fine by me, if the > respective programmer doesn't support their own read and write byte > methods, to use avr_read_byte_default() and avr_write_byte_default() > in place. But what sense does it make to retry an individual > programmer's signalled failure using that same programmer's cmd > method?
I have always wondered why we had that fallback by default - especially since I started looking into adding support for USB DFU into avrdude. > If people think the current way of doing things is really useful, I'd > at least like to make the "cmd" method optional. Currently, the JTAG > ICE implementations already fill in a dummy for that method that just > writes a message to stderr, and is never supposed to be called at all. > The change would then be to skip the above mentioned diversion to > avr_read_byte_default() and avr_write_byte_default() if the programmer > in question doesn't support the "cmd" method, and rather return that > programmer's error from its "read_byte" and "write_byte" methods. Making it optional seems like a good compromise to me. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpgzfUyFaRvK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ avrdude-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev
