Hi Rob, I don't know if it's good to have both "bit*2 VCFG" and "VCG0/VCFG1" in device files, from design point of view, but it's ok for you, I'd prefer having both: VCFG0/VCFG1 respects datasheets names, while "bit*2 VCFG" provides an interesting shortcut while coding the Vref management.
It it's not a big deal, let's have both ! I'd suggest *not* to commit new device files, and wait for the 0.3 release. Cheers, Seb > > > Hi Seb, > > I've no preference! > I have already changed the dev2jal script (but not committed the change) > to enumerate VCFG when it contains 2 bits... No big deal to undo it or > have both declarations! > > Regards, Rob. > > > Sebastien Lelong wrote: > > > Thinking again about this naming convention... Here the kind of code that > I > > could write for VCFG bits: > > > > (say ADC_NVREF is the number of vref, can have value 0, 1 or 2) > > > > - When separated in VCFG0 and VCFG1: > > > > if ADC_NVREF == 1 then > > VCFG0 = true > > end if > > if ADC_NVREF == 2 > > VCFG1 = true > > end if > > > > - When defined as bit*2: > > > > VCFG = ADC_NVREF > > > > > > The 2nd one, which corresponds to the opposite of what I've suggested, is > > far simpler... but does not correspond to the datasheet notation ! > > > > So I don't know which is best. Maybe both ? :) What's your opinion on > this ? > > > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
