Go Down

Topic: Why do a lot of people want to burn bootloaders into chips? (Read 2 times) previous topic - next topic

EmilyJane

I'm repurposing a weather station that has an ATmega8 chip. I wanted to program the boot loader into it so that I can develop the new software directly on the hardware it will run on. When I get done, I'll flash the chip through ISP and lose the boot loader. I realize I could use ISP during that whole process but I prefer working in the Arduino IDE instead of in the gcc command line environment. Like retrolefty says, different strokes.

Grumpy_Mike

Quote
o why not just upload your final sketches to the standalone (non-bootloaded chip) project when its working

Because sometimes you have surrounded your stand alone system with all sorts of hardware. You don't know if it is right unless you have this hardware. You have built this properly and it is not that easy to connect that hardware into a standard arduino. In fact most of my projects go straight to standalone and never see a "conventional" arduino board.

Bobnova

I sometimes skip the bootloader entirely, I have the FTDI hooked up for serial debugging and program via USBtinyISP.  It's great, no automatic closure of the serial monitor window and no reseting the Arduino when I open said window!

simplesi

Quote
I wanted to program the boot loader into it so that I can develop the new software directly on the hardware it will run on.


I can see if your developing like that and need to access the serial port for debugging info via FTDI connections then that's a very good reason.

Quote
but I prefer working in the Arduino IDE instead of in the gcc command line environment.


Who doesn't! ... but the only time a command line is needed is to set the fuses - after that its IDE all the way :)  I'm thinking that what's needed is an option in the IDE to just set the fuses to the same settings as they would be if you'd burned the bootloader for your device.
But then, there would just be lots of posts asking how to burn the fuses so no real gain :)
So I've probably got the answer to the question :)

Simon







westfw

Quote
or via a £5 USB programmer.

The quick answer is that USB programmers are traditionally more expensive than that, and significantly more difficult to use.  An Arduino is essentially  a $10 microcontroller with a $10 USB interface that service double purpose: communications AND program loading.  Adding a $10 programmer is a 33% cost increase... (those are sorta "wholesale" costs...)

It might have been an interesting idea on Uno-class boards (with a programmable USB controller) to have the USB controller double as an actual programmer, but that's not what happened...

Go Up