Sebastien Lelong wrote:
> 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 ?
I think this would be a good approach: SSPCON and SSPCON2
(please forget my previous suggestion).
Your calculation ignores the SSP1CONx and SSP2CONx (in many of the
18Fs). Did you check these for possible conflicts, or do we ignore these
for the moment?
BTW: With MPlab 8.20 only 2 new device files would become available:
18F23K20 and 18F43K20 which are 'future products', hardly any need to
put a new set of device files into Jallib. So I think I'll wait for the
decision about SSPCON (re)naming.
Regards, Rob.
--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
