On 2012年03月07日 00:25, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:50:37 +0900 Samir Ibradžićsibradzic@gmail.com wrote:
it might be a better idea to let the user specify the actual frequency instead of the divisor like some other programmers do (serprog and buspirate).
Well, it may be more clear to specify exact frequencies, but we may end up with weird set of frequencies for all these large dividers. Maybe it would be better to support a limited set of "standard" dividers and their corresponding frequencies, like:
divider | freq --------+-------- 2 | 30MHz 4 | 15MHz 6 | 10MHz […] (and so on)
But i vote for supporting specific divider after all, one can never know if there is some obscure device out there in the wild that supports only 6365372Hz.
well we could support both actually... selecting the divider as in our patch, or alternatively the frequency (if it is not possible print the next lower available one)...
anyway this can be done later and i'd like to get this into svn now-ish rather than wait for the perfect patch. you do not happen to own a logic analyzer that could confirm that the frequency now is really what we think it is, do you?
Sorry, no analyzer available here. I can confirm though, that when using bigger dividers, data transfer speeds achieved matches the calculated frequencies, at least on the device i have here (PicoTAP).
in any case could you please test the patch i have sent so that we know it does not break the programmer completely?
Already tested, seems ok. Anyway, we just need to be careful that the patch has zero consequences when "spispeed" option is not used at all.
if you like to work on a followup patch please use "spispeed" as the parameter for the frequency because that is the one used in serprog and the buspirate already.
Do you have any updates, or i can re-base on top of your previous patch?
R, S