RE: [avr-chat] Expanding the ATxmega support in the toolchain

[Weddington, Eric]

1. The "architectures" that are listed in the toolchain have absolutely nothing 
to do with the architectures or families of chips. They are just convenient 
categories or groups to put chips in that have similar features that the 
toolchain needs to know about.

2. Let me know the exact chips you're interested in having support for, and 
I'll take care of it for you.

3. And for support for the ATxmega16A4, I already have it done. The next 
release of WinAVR will be roughly mid-December. If you need the patches to 
build a Linux toolchain, I can send them on to you.

Eric Weddington


> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
>  On Behalf Of Erik Walthinsen
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:51 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [avr-chat] Expanding the ATxmega support in the toolchain
> 
> I've got boards ready to populate for a [paid] prototyping 
> project that
> are going to be getting ATxmega16a4's (for lack of anybody selling
> 64a4's...).  The problem is, even the WinAVR patches don't 
> seem to show
> any support for anything other than the 64a1 and 128a1.
> 
> I'm going to be adding support for the 16a4, and probably every other
> chip actually nominally available at this point, and submitting the
> patches soon (since this is the next roadblock for me to blast through
> on this contract).
> 
> However, I'm *royally* confused by the presence of the avrxmega2-7
> "architectures".  There seems to be no correlation between the arch
> number and the chip it's supposed to represent, as per the table at
> http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/using_tools.html  Further,
> the table refers to a number of chips that don't even exist 
> (the D* series).
> 
> From my understanding of both Atmel's very clearly stated goal, and a
> lot of time reading the datasheets, there should be *1* "architecture"
> for all the existing chips, that would be the atxmegaA.  The 
> only other
> that might make sense could be a <=64KB variant.
> 
> Anyone able to shed light on what's up with these architectures and
> whether they actually mean anything, or would it make sense 
> to collapse
> them down as part of adding full support to all the current chips?
> 
> TIA,
>    Omega
>    aka Erik Walthinsen
>    address@hidden
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AVR-chat mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-chat
>