Re: [avr-libc-dev] Nice to have: XCK Definition

[Frédéric Nadeau]

I do agree with you for the naming, I thought at fist that it will be
nice to know that it is an Active Low pin, but as you mention, it does
not worth breaking naming pattern.

I also like the idea of modifying the XML to header script.

I'm looking at it and the code refer to:
src/jtagII/xml/Partdescriptionfiles
Is those the same that the one that comes with AVR Studio? If not,
where can I get them.

Thanks

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Weddington, Eric
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> address@hidden
>> [mailto:address@hidden
>> org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Nadeau
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:02 AM
>> To: address@hidden
>> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Nice to have: XCK Definition
>>
>> The XMLs I have come from AVR Studio 4.16 build 628.
>>
>> I forgot to mention, to overcome #define limitation, pin names that:
>
>> - Ends with +(like AMP1+) will be named AMP1_P_DDR
>> - Ends with -(like AMP1-) will be named AMP1_N_DDR
>
> I like the above...
>
>> - Start with '(like 'RESET, 'RD, 'SS, etc) will be named N_SS_DDR
>
> but I'm not sure about this part.
>
> The "not" part just shows that the pin is active low. We don't necessarily 
> need that information in the pin name definition, do we? If we include it, it 
> breaks up the naming pattern. I would lean towards just keeping it like so:
> RESET_DDR
> RESET_PORT
> RESET_PIN
> RESET_IDX
> RD_DDR
> RD_PORT
> RD_PIN
> RD_IDX
> SS_DDR
> SS_PORT
> SS_PIN
> SS_IDX
> etc.
>
> Eric
>