avr-libc-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Frédéric Nadeau
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: [bug #25300] Additional i/o port names
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:12:27 -0400

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Weddington, Eric
<address@hidden> wrote:
>> > 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?
>

It seems that this particular problem only affects Output compare. SS,
RD, WR, RESET, will never have an identical pin but reversed.

Would it be then a good idea to have let says:
#define OC1A_DDR ....
#define OC1AN_DDR ...

"N" as in negative or "I" as in Inverted. I don't like "I" as it can
be mistaken for a lower case "L".

Any though on that?

As a side note, I had to modify some AVR Studio XML(Some had duplicate
entries or invalids one) to generate my patch(patch generation is
pending due to the current issue). Should I include a patch for the
Atmel XML also?

Frédéric




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]