So, we have: * 18 devices with two SSPCON, named SSPCON2 and SSPCON * 124 devices with two SSPCON, named SSPCON1 and SSPCON2 * 2 devices with one SSPCON, named SSPCON1 (16f88 and 16f87) * 31 devices with one SSPCON, named SSPCON * and 1 device with one SSPCON, named SSPCON0 (!!! 16F687, named "SSPCON" in datasheet)
The global rules would be: - if one SSP module, name it SSPCON - if two SSP module, name it SSPCON1 and SSPCON2 ... Except datasheets seem to prefer SSPCON in *any* case. So having SSPCON, and if available SSPCON2 would be nice IMHO. What's your point ? When we decide to rename 'SSPCON' into 'SSPCON1' in the device files > then we seem to have a rather consistent naming over the whole PIC range > (only the PICs with 2 SSP modules give another issue). > Why renaming SSPCON to SSPCON1 gives more consistent names ? Why PICs with two SSP modules would have problems with this naming ? (sorry, I don't understand what you mean...) Cheers, Seb -- Sébastien Lelong http://www.sirloon.net http://sirbot.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
