RE: [Avr-libc-corelib] Mappings from pins to capabilities?

[Weddington, Eric]

This bug/patch has been in process for some time. Some of the newer header 
files have this information, but not all of the header files have this.

Eric Weddington 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> gnu.org] On Behalf Of David A. Mellis
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 8:06 AM
> To: Frédéric Nadeau
> Cc: address@hidden; David A. Mellis
> Subject: Re: [Avr-libc-corelib] Mappings from pins to capabilities?
> 
> Wow, that looks great!  It would be really useful to have 
> something like that in avr-libc or avr-corelib.
> 
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:33 AM, Frédéric Nadeau wrote:
> 
> > Take a look at bug issue 25300 in avr-libc
> > http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25300
> > Proposed solution gives you something like this
> > #define OC1D_N_DDR DDRB
> > #define OC1D_N_PORT PORTB
> > #define OC1D_N_PIN PINB
> > #define OC1D_N_BIT 4
> > 
> > I have a cleaner version of this home, unfortunatly I'm 
> working out of
> > town for the week so I won't be able to update the patch before
> > augusth 13th.
> > 
> > Frédéric Nadeau ing. jr
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:18 AM, David A. Mellis 
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I'm the lead software developer for Arduino, an ATmega8, 
> 168, 328, and
> >> 1280 based development platform.  One of the issues we 
> struggle with
> >> is mapping, across multiple cpu's, the port / bit of a pin to the
> >> other capabilities of the pin (i.e. the labels in the pin
> >> configurations section of the datasheet) - for example, in order to
> >> write a function to both set a pin as an output and enable 
> PWM on that
> >> pin.  Right now, that requires maintaining a mapping 
> between, say, PG5
> >> and 0C0B.  This seems like it would be a great thing to 
> include in the
> >> corelib in some form.  The ideal would be a way to go in both
> >> directions.  One possibility is to define this as a series 
> of macros,
> >> which could run at compile-time if the parameters are known.  But
> >> really, any implementation would be fine.  I know there 
> are a lot of
> >> complications in doing this across the whole AVR line, but 
> that's one
> >> of the reasons that it seems to make sense in the corelib: 
> it would be
> >> a chance to resolve all the tricky issues once in a way that other
> >> developers could take advantage of.  Certainly, it would 
> be a big help
> >> for Arduino.
> >> 
> >> What do you think?
> >> 
> >> David
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>