> -----Original Message----- > From: > avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu.org > [mailto:avr-libc-dev-bounces+eric.weddington=atmel....@nongnu. > org] On Behalf Of Bob Paddock > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:48 AM > To: avr-libc-dev@nongnu.org > 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? _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list AVR-libc-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev