Re: [avrdude-dev] Slight behaviour change of '-U' option - asking for comments

[Joerg Wunsch]

As Brian Dean wrote:

> Since I do this so often it's not even funny, I conclude the former
> must be "correct" and that's the way I should have implemented '-U'
> to begin with.

Deja vu.  Like the -i option that went away in rev 1.92? :-)

Well, I never got the hang of which direction -i and -o were referring
to though.

> So I was wondering if anyone would have any objection to me making
> the first case above be accepted and default to writing the flash
> memory when only a filename is specified.  Or would that be too
> dangerous in that it is making too many assumptions?

I don't think it's too dangerous, and could certainly live with it.
As you do have to name an existing file, this ought to be indication
enough about the user's intention.

Anyway, if you touch that, please do me a favour:

% avrdude -c jtag2fast -p m649 -P /dev/cuaa6 -U fl:r:foo.hex:i
                                                ^^
------------------------------------------------
avrdude: jtagmkII_initialize(): warning: OCDEN fuse not programmed, single-byte 
EEPROM updates not possible
avrdude: AVR device initialized and ready to accept instructions

Reading | ################################################## | 100% 0.03s

avrdude: Device signature = 0x1e9603



avrdude: reading fl memory:
-----------------^^
Reading | ################################################## | 100% 14.48s

avrdude: writing output file "foo.hex"

avrdude: safemode: Fuses OK

avrdude done.  Thank you.


Please use the full memory area name from the spec file when writing
messages. ;-)

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)