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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: >> [email protected] >> [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eweddington=cso.atmel....@nongnu. >> org] On Behalf Of Frédéric Nadeau >> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:02 AM >> To: [email protected] >> 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 > _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
