[avr-chat] avrdude question

[Marge Coahran]

Hello,

I would be grateful if someone could answer a question regarding avrdude's 
configuration file, avrdude.conf.

I recently downloaded and built avrdude v5.4, along with its version of 
avrdude.conf (1.122), for use in programming the ATmega8515. It worked 
great!

However, my system administrator prefers to install the stable debian 
package (avrdude v5.2-2 and avrdude.conf v1.105). Unfortunately, I find 
that this installation refuses to program the ATmega8515, apparently 
because the chip's self-proclaimed signature does not match the signature 
expected by the conf file. I have included the output below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
avrdude -y \
        -C /etc/avrdude.conf \
        -p m8515 \
        -c stk500v2 \
        -P /dev/ttyS0 \
        -U flash:w:findbeep.hex

avrdude: AVR device initialized and ready to accept instructions

Reading | ################################################## | 100% 0.02s

avrdude: Device signature = 0x1e9306
avrdude: Expected signature for ATMEGA8515 is 1E 93 07
         Double check chip, or use -F to override this check.

avrdude done.  Thank you.

make: *** [programSTK] Error 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do see that (among other differences) the two conf files differ in 
the two lines given below regarding the ATmega8515.

avrdude.conf.in,v 1.105 (debian stable):
 <     avr910_devcode   = 0x3B;
 <     signature        = 0x1e 0x93 0x07;
avrdude.conf.in,v 1.122 2007/05/16 :
 >     avr910_devcode   = 0x3A;
 >     signature        = 0x1e 0x93 0x06;

However, I also find that simply substituting the newer conf file for use 
with avrdude 5.2-2 does not work for syntax reasons.

I am tempted to simply edit the older conf file to match the newer one in 
these two lines. However, I am also hesitant to do so since I assume 
signature validation is intended to protect the chip. Can anyone shed some 
light on this issue? Would it be safe and advisable for me to edit the two 
lines shown above in v1.105 such that they match the lines in v1.122, or 
are there other differences that proclude this solution?

Thanks,
Marge