I am trying to compile for the mega168P and see the error that PB0-PB3 are not defined in the TestShell.c. I understand that this hasn't been tested with this processor but the 168 seems to be (no warning that it is untested). I have two questions 1. if I translate all the portB to PortC and so on will there be any conflict? secondly, seems that symbol PB3 (used as SDA and ACK) is used even in the Tiny861 implementation and that isn't defined in the device file either, only PB0-PB2, so I looked in the AVR-GCC libs and couldn't find it there either, so where does this come from or supposed to be PB2.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Sorry for reacting so incredibly late. This is the situation. First, the Shell has not been virtualized yet, so it only runs on the Tiny861. The pins used are hardcoded. The reason i have not done this is that i have not yet found the time to build the hardware to test the shell for the other devices. And, it makes no sense to develop without a proper test ;-). Second, you mix up the definitions in the device file (which for tracing only) and the pins used for communication with the shell. The one ack is not equal to the other, those are totally different protocols. Thirdly, it is possible to change the port from B to C in the device file, if you like, but care must be taken. For the testshell it is not a good idea, since it is not fully virtualized.
If you want to port the shell to 168P, and change the port, do not use tracing. You should be reasonable save.
Next time, if there are questions, it is good to post here, and write me an email as well. My response time will be much shorter.
Regards,
Ruud.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I am trying to compile for the mega168P and see the error that PB0-PB3 are not defined in the TestShell.c. I understand that this hasn't been tested with this processor but the 168 seems to be (no warning that it is untested). I have two questions 1. if I translate all the portB to PortC and so on will there be any conflict? secondly, seems that symbol PB3 (used as SDA and ACK) is used even in the Tiny861 implementation and that isn't defined in the device file either, only PB0-PB2, so I looked in the AVR-GCC libs and couldn't find it there either, so where does this come from or supposed to be PB2.
Hi Daniel,
Sorry for reacting so incredibly late. This is the situation. First, the Shell has not been virtualized yet, so it only runs on the Tiny861. The pins used are hardcoded. The reason i have not done this is that i have not yet found the time to build the hardware to test the shell for the other devices. And, it makes no sense to develop without a proper test ;-). Second, you mix up the definitions in the device file (which for tracing only) and the pins used for communication with the shell. The one ack is not equal to the other, those are totally different protocols. Thirdly, it is possible to change the port from B to C in the device file, if you like, but care must be taken. For the testshell it is not a good idea, since it is not fully virtualized.
If you want to port the shell to 168P, and change the port, do not use tracing. You should be reasonable save.
Next time, if there are questions, it is good to post here, and write me an email as well. My response time will be much shorter.
Regards,
Ruud.