Defining PAIVT for Curiosity Nano's PIC24FJ64GU205?

[David C. Norris]

I'd like to build FF with AIVT enabled for this board, and wonder what (if any!) value would be appropriate forPAIVT in p24fj_ga_config.inc. Unlike AIVTDIS, PAIVT does not show up among the configuration bits in MPLAB IDE.

Working with latest FF source git pull'ed this morning, I've set AIVTDIS = ON in configs.c:

#elif defined(__PIC24FJ64GU205__)

// PIC24FJ64GU205 Configuration Bit Settings

// 'C' source line config statements

// FSEC
#pragma config BWRP = OFF               // Boot Segment Write-Protect bit (Boot Segment may be written)
< etc... >
Protect Level bits (No Protection (other than CWRP))
#pragma config AIVTDIS = ON             // Alternate Interrupt Vector Table bit (Enabled AIVT)
// #pragma config AIVTDIS = OFF            // Alternate Interrupt Vector Table bit (Disabled AIVT)

but FF still builds without the words AIVT , IVT , INT/ which are defined in sections guarded by .ifdef PAIVT.

I see that p24fk_config.inc has a section,

;;; Memory control defines
.equ EEPROM_WRITE, 0x4004   ; Write one word automatic erase
.equ FLASH_ERASE,  0x4058   ; Erase one row (64/96 bytes)
.equ FLASH_WRITE,  0x4004   ; Write one row (64/96 bytes)
.equ PAIVT,        0x100
.equ FLASH_ROWSIZE,  0x0020 ; Row size, words
.equ FLASH_ROWS,     0x0001 ; Rows
.equ FBUFSIZE,       FLASH_ROWSIZE*FLASH_ROWS*2
.equ FBUFMASK,       ~(FBUFSIZE-1)

but the (corresponding?) section of p24fj_ga_config.inc warns "Do not modify":

;;; Flash memory commands. Do not modify.
.equ FLASH_ERASE,    0x4003     ; Memory page erase
.equ FLASH_WRITE,    0x4002     ; Memory row write
.equ FLASH_WRITE_SINGLE, 0x4001 ; Memory double word write
.equ FLASH_WRITE_DOUBLE, 0x4001 ; Memory double word write
.equ FLASH_ROWSIZE,  0x0080 ; Row size, words
.equ FLASH_ROWS,     0x0008 ; Rows
.equ FBUFSIZE,       FLASH_ROWSIZE*FLASH_ROWS*2
.equ FBUFMASK,       ~(FBUFSIZE-1)

[Mikael Nordman]

David, on this chip the AIVT is only supported when a Boot Segment is implemented.
FF does not implement the Boot Segment.

So some redesign would be needed.