Hi Seb,
Sebastien Lelong wrote: > 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 ! It is not a big deal to get 'm both! But some questions: I suppose you would like both for all devices with 2 VCFG bits in ADCONx, thus also PIC of which the .dev file contains only the enumerated fields (e.g. 16f88x)? Somewhat more work but can be done. What about the PVCFG an NVCFG fields (like of the 18F13K50)? Also both type of declarations required/desired? My guess: yes! Regards, Rob. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
