Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Option -xnoresetfor -c arduino and -c urclock #1382

Closed
mcuee opened this issue Jun 5, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Option -xnoresetfor -c arduino and -c urclock #1382

mcuee opened this issue Jun 5, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@mcuee
Copy link
Collaborator

mcuee commented Jun 5, 2023

From here:

@stefanrueger mentioned the following.

Basically -c arduino and -c stk500v1 are the same except -c arduino tries to reset the connected board and EEPROM treatment of -c arduino is compatible with Arduino as ISP, whilst EEPROM treatment of -c stk500v1 is compatible with the STK500 programmer with v1 firmware.

Maybe we should give -c arduino and the (better) alternative -c urclock an option -xnoreset...

@mcuee mcuee added the enhancement New feature or request label Jun 5, 2023
@mcuee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcuee commented Jun 5, 2023

@stefanrueger

Just wondering whether it make sense for a programmer (not a bootloader) to implement a protocol similar to urboot.

For protocols like STK500V1 and STK500V2, there are both programmer and bootloader implementations.

@stefanrueger
Copy link
Collaborator

@mcuee Checking the code base I now think PR #1383 is possibly a better solution. Could you check?

@stefanrueger
Copy link
Collaborator

Just wondering whether it make sense for a programmer (not a bootloader) to implement [urprotocol].

They could. Someone could write an urclock as ISP sketch or so and it would be a simple case of a new programmer entry in avrdude.conf to serve that programmer. Having said this, urprotocol, was made for bootloaders so they can be small. This is done by shifting work to the uploader/downloader, so there will be limited benefits for a programmer that does not have the same space constraints as a bootloader.

@mcuee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcuee commented Jun 5, 2023

@mcuee Checking the code base I now think PR #1383 is possibly a better solution. Could you check?

Yes I will check PR #1383.

@mcuee
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mcuee commented Jun 5, 2023

Close this in favor of PR #1383.

@mcuee mcuee closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jun 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants