[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [avr-libc-dev] SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN
From: |
Weddington, Eric |
Subject: |
RE: [avr-libc-dev] SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:12:21 -0700 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Ivan Shmakov
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 9:36 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: Ivan Shmakov
> Subject: [avr-libc-dev] SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN
>
> >>>>> Ivan Shmakov <address@hidden> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > BTW, since SPMEN seems to be frequent alias to SELFPRGEN,
> why not to
> > define one of them in a common file (`io.h'?) instead of defining
> > both in each of the part-specific headers (where
> applicable)? E. g.:
In the future, the IO header files will be generated from the XML part
files from Atmel, requiring a 1-to-1 relationship of XML->IO header
file. It would be difficult to do this if common definitions are put in
separate files.
> Since `SPMEN' seems to be used more widely in the AVR Libc
> includes as the name for the bit, I suggest replacing
> `SELFPRGEN' with `SPMEN' in the macro definitions in the
> individual io*.h files, like the following. (Though it could
> easily done the other way around.)
>
Our policy is to provide definitions that are found in the XML part
description files provided by Atmel.
Eric Weddington
- [avr-libc-dev] SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Ivan Shmakov, 2008/01/03
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN,
Weddington, Eric <=
- [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Ivan Shmakov, 2008/01/03
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/03
- [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Ivan Shmakov, 2008/01/03
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Joerg Wunsch, 2008/01/03
- RE: [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Weddington, Eric, 2008/01/03
- [avr-libc-dev] Re: SPMEN vs SELFPRGEN, Ivan Shmakov, 2008/01/04