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

[Weddington, Eric]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of Bob Paddock
> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:48 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [bug #25300] Additional i/o port names
> 
> > *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 know that that is just a short-term solution and a better long-term solution 
is coming. It's just not available right now.


> > 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.

We should only have to mark signals that are inverted. What naming scheme 
should be used that's *short* and easily memorized?