Re: [Amforth-devel] ATmega103?

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Bernard Mentink wrote:

> Can someone tell me if the ATmega103 device is supported to run amforth? On
> initial inspection of the m103def.inc file, there doesn't seem to be a NRWW
> bootloader
> area, if this is the case does that mean amforth will not work with this
> part?

If a bootloader for in-system-programming exists for this device,
amforth should be able to run on it as well, but may require
some more work.

> On a similar vein, is there a list of devices published thatamforth "will"
> be able to be run on given it's current architecture.

There is no official list since I don't have access to every type
of controller and cannot test each and every version. The files in
the device directory are (more or less) regularly tested and produced
at least one working system. Internally I use some other devices but
they are not well tested or do not work at all (e.g. at90usb on the
ATUSBKEY sample hardware).

If you want to use another controller, just create a device file
similiar to the existing ones. If you want it to be included with
amforth, send it to me and I'll happily put it in.

Basically amforth is only limited by the architecture (atmega cores with
hardware multiplier and some instructions) and the flash size. An
Atmega48  is too small (amforth needs around 7 KB flash for itself) and
everything with more than 128 KB is to big. Attinys lack some core
features (and flash size), atxmegas may work rsn. The 128KB boundary may
fall too, but currently I have only some vague ideas how to do it and
(more important) no hardware to play with.

Bye
Matthias
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIGXAD9bEHdGEMFjMRAokRAJ4wHGL7X4aVRwtREBGA/QmQU5OSHwCdEuQP
cHoQeSTbwCqI/VFUZsuzYAE=
=9FkE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----