"Greg London" <[email protected]> writes: > This is really convoluted, so feel free to reply to me offlist. > > I'm trying to model a register map for a voltage regulator chip. > > Our chips used to have an extremely simple register map. > There was an I2C interface, and the designers created a > list of register names, defined what address they were > at, how many bits wide they were, masks, etc, and we > were done. It was easy because every register name > was completely unique. > > So I just modeled it as a simple perl hash. > > Our latest regulator chip has multiple voltage outputs > and the old register map approach fell apart. We now have > the same register names occuring at multiple addresses > and each version of a register might behave a little > differently. > > i.e. the "output_voltage" register might be ten > bits wide for the first voltage output core > and another "output_voltage" register might be 12 bits wide > for the second core. And of course, > each "output_voltage" has to have a different address > depending on which output its controlling. > > I don't even know how to model this.
Would it work for you to keep your hash but make the values instead be references to arrays of references to objects with the attributes you mention above: address, width, masks, etc.? Are the values in your current hash objects with such attributes? Is it only that before you had one value per name and now you have many or is there more to it than that? I guess what I'm thinking is maybe where in the part of your email I've removed, what you are thinking of as container classes could be regular Perl arrays (and above maybe I missed a level since you mention containers of containers, but still that could be a hash of arrays of references to arrays of references to structs). Maybe you'd want to abstract over it and hide away in a module with subs that know the data structure. I probably don't fully understand your requirements, but I'm not seeing the case for subclassing or polymorphism. Is it that some hash elements you want the old way as simple values and others in collections? So either have a rigid 2 (or 3?) level structure that you walk down and when you only have one you have an array of one, or else use ref to see whether you have an array or scalar in each hash value and in each array element as you walk down the tree. -- Mike Small [email protected] _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
