> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> rg] On Behalf Of Scott L. Price
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 11:39 AM
> To: Galen Seitz
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Re: [avrdude-dev] [RFC] avrdude
> Feature RequestandCall for Volunteers
>
>
>
> Galen Seitz wrote:
> > Eric Weddington wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> org] On Behalf Of Joerg Wunsch
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:21 PM
> >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> >>> Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: [avrdude-dev] [RFC] avrdude Feature
> >>> Request andCall for Volunteers
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> >>> Also, it
> >>> might be useful to be able to suppress updating
> individual parts on
> >>> some invocations. Not only that updating the fuses to
> the same value
> >>> could perhaps contribute to some EEPROM cell wear, but
> you might not
> >>> want to re-initialize your EEPROM all the time as well.
> (Isn't that
> >>> what has already been bothering AVR Studio users? ;-)
> >>
> >> Well the only solution is, of course, read-before-write, and only
> >> write if
> >> different. I assume this can be done on the fuses and eeprom.
> >>
> >> Also, realize that the feature that I'm proposing is
> *intended* for
> >> factory
> >> programming for manufacturing, i.e. this would likely be
> used for the
> >> initial, first programming of a device. Not necessarily
> used in an R&D
> >> environment where EEPROM cell wear may become an issue
> after thousands of
> >> programming cycles.
> >>
> >
> > FWIW, I would prefer to use the same file for development
> and production.
> > A single file reduces the number of variables when someone
> calls and says
> > 'It doesn't work'.
> > I like the idea of read-before-write, but for development I
> would still
> > want some way to control whether flash, eeprom, or fuses
> are written on
> > an individual basis. For development work I would like to
> tell avrdude
> > to verify the fuses and then write to flash. I think this
> would catch
> > the majority of my own programming mistakes.
> >
> > galen
>
> I agree. I really like the idea of the single file, but I need to be
> able to tell it not to write to things on an individual basis.
Hi Galen, Scott,
Thanks for the feedback. Would an algorithm such as this be acceptable?:
1. If -U switches exist on command line, then follow those sequences exactly
2. else (no -U switches exist on command line) follow automatic sequence:
2.1. Fuses (verify, if different: write and verify)
2.2. Flash (erase, write, verify)
2.3. EEPROM (verify, if different: erase, write, and verify)
Eric
_______________________________________________
avrdude-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avrdude-dev
