Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [bug #25300] Additional i/o port names

[Bob Paddock]

> *sigh*
>  I really wish the XML files were more consistent.

Many of us have that wish too.

In my view all of the individual XML files had to be unified
in to a single large XML file, and standardized in the process
of the conversion.  Then an additional file merged in to add the
information needed that is not contained in the Atmel XML files.

This means work on the converter every time a new device is introduced.

> I'm open to ideas on a naming scheme.

>>I'm working on the duplicate thing and I'm facing a critical issue. It
>> has been decided that we should not care mutch if pins where active
>> low or active high(such as SS, RD, WR, etc).

Use whatever_asserted and whatever_deasserted.

Using things like whatever_high/whatever_low or whatever_1/whatever_0
just leads to bad karma when moving files to future hardware.  Where
new hardware has some of the signals inverted.


-- 
http://www.wearablesmartsensors.com/
http://www.softwaresafety.net/
http://www.designer-iii.com/
http://www.unusualresearch.com/