As Pitchumani Sivanupandi wrote:
> >Can Microchip at least grant us permission to back-integrate their
> >header files here? I assume they still have the usual 3-clause
> >BSD-like copyright statement, so it wouldn't be a legal issue to have
> >them here.
> I think there is no change in licensin
On Wednesday 08 February 2017 01:16 PM, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
As janegil.r...@microchip.com wrote:
We have spent quite some effort into detaching part support from
other toolchains and libraries. In doing this we can more easily
release support for new parts and fix bugs in the existing part
supp
As janegil.r...@microchip.com wrote:
> We have spent quite some effort into detaching part support from
> other toolchains and libraries. In doing this we can more easily
> release support for new parts and fix bugs in the existing part
> support. Part support is now distributed in CMSIS-compatibl
On Wednesday 08 February 2017 01:59 AM, janegil.r...@microchip.com wrote:
As Joerg Wunsch wrote:
In the latter case, we cannot simply move that code into the tree,
because Atmel has the copyright for it. They at least have to
agree, but sure, it would be easiest if they integrated it
theirselv
As Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> > > In the latter case, we cannot simply move that code into the tree,
> > > because Atmel has the copyright for it. They at least have to
> > > agree, but sure, it would be easiest if they integrated it
> > > theirselves as they used to do in the past.
> >
> > is there a
As Wilhelm Meier wrote:
> > In the latter case, we cannot simply move that code into the tree,
> > because Atmel has the copyright for it. They at least have to agree,
> > but sure, it would be easiest if they integrated it theirselves as
> > they used to do in the past.
>
> is there a chance to
Am 07.02.2017 um 14:36 schrieb Joerg Wunsch:
> As Wilhelm Meier wrote:
>
>>> But of course, if you want to submit a patch yourself, feel free to
>>> do so. The biggest work is to create the ioxxx.h header file.
>
>> ok, obviously done by Fa. Watterott.
>
> Are you sure? Or are they just redist
As Wilhelm Meier wrote:
> > But of course, if you want to submit a patch yourself, feel free to
> > do so. The biggest work is to create the ioxxx.h header file.
> ok, obviously done by Fa. Watterott.
Are you sure? Or are they just redistributing stuff that Atmel
already ships as part of their
Am 07.02.2017 um 14:21 schrieb Joerg Wunsch:
> As Wilhelm Meier wrote:
>
>> recently I found that there ist not support for the (new) atmega328pb.
>> Do you plan to integrate this device?
>
> Well, recently, the contributions for new devices mainly came from
> Atmel, errm, Microchip.
>
> But of
As Wilhelm Meier wrote:
> recently I found that there ist not support for the (new) atmega328pb.
> Do you plan to integrate this device?
Well, recently, the contributions for new devices mainly came from
Atmel, errm, Microchip.
But of course, if you want to submit a patch yourself, feel free to
Hello,
recently I found that there ist not support for the (new) atmega328pb.
Do you plan to integrate this device?
If this will not happen timely, how can I do it myself (and send a patch)?
Thanks for your reply!
___
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
AVR-li
Hello,
recently I found that there ist not support for the (new) atmega328pb.
Do you plan to integrate this device?
Thanks for your reply!
___
AVR-libc-dev mailing list
AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
12 matches
Mail list logo
