[avrdude-dev] [bug #44170] Update/Rectify/Clarify Documentation

[Volker]

URL:
  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?44170>

                 Summary: Update/Rectify/Clarify Documentation
                 Project: AVR Downloader/UploaDEr
            Submitted by: funker211
            Submitted on: Di 03 Feb 2015 11:26:01 GMT
                Category: None
                Severity: 3 - Normal
                Priority: 5 - Normal
              Item Group: None
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
         Originator Name: funker211
        Originator Email: 
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Any

    _______________________________________________________

Details:

In the AVRDUDE Documentation
(http://www.nongnu.org/avrdude/user-manual/avrdude_1.html) it says in
paragraph 6, sentence 4: "These all use the MPSSE mode, which has a specific
pin mapping. Bit 1 (the lsb of the byte in the config file) is SCK. Bit 2 is
MOSI, and Bit 3 is MISO. Bit 4 usually reset."

So, Bit number 1 would be SCK, Bit number 2 MOSI, and so forth.

Now, when I look into the "avrdude.conf.in" (the config file used to generate
the default configuration file when building), for all "avrftdi" type
programmers, SCK has bit 0 assigned, MOSI has bit 1 assigned, and so forth.
This kind of numeration is the common one, and what a user normally expects.
It maps ADBUS0 to ADBUS7 to bits 0 to 7.

This is in conflict with what the documentation says. In my view, the
documentation should be updated and rectified (or clarified that bit 1 means
"the first bit", which has <strong>BIT NUMBER</strong> 0).

Now, look at the point where "id = "UM232H";" is defined. It assigns sck = 1,
mosi = 2, miso = 3 and reset  = 4, so it uses the bit numbers of the
documentation, not a zero-based numbering. Yet, when I look at the cited web
page for this programmer, the hardware assignment is SCK = ADBUS0, MOSI =
ADBUS1, MISO = ADBUS2 and RST = ADBUS3. Again, here is a zero-based numbering
and the assignment (as I think) is wrong!

I assume that the definition of all "avrftdi" type programmers is correct and
indeed, a zero-based numbering is required here as well. In this case, the
documentation is wrong (or not precise) or the definition of the "UM2232H" is
wrong. Did no one test this?

This is documentation issue 1 of 2 I came across. I will post issue 2 in
another thread, in order to not mix them.





    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?44170>

_______________________________________________
  Nachricht gesendet von/durch Savannah
  http://savannah.nongnu.org/