Sebastien Lelong wrote:
>
>> Depends on Microchip's whimsicality....
>> We should always be aware of changes in the .dev files and be prepared
>> to adapt (1) our device files or (2) our libraries in that order or
>> priority. I'm always trying to (re-)organize my scripts for the device
>> files as flexible as possible, so that changes in MPLAB have limited
>> impact.
>
>
> This can have impacts hard to mitigate. For instance, the way ADCS bits
> (clock selection for ADC) are distributed amongst device files gives the
> main logic about how to configure clock. This gives this kind of rules: "if
> ADCON0_ADCS exists, then it's 2-bits long". See adc_clock.jal and my
> comments with "grep".
Don't understand 'mitigate', suppose you mean 'migrate'.
Anyway, I did not mean that we should follow blindly all changes in
MPlab .dev files! But when there are changes we definitely have to
decide what to do: follow MPLAB and accept the consequences for device
files and libraries or adapt the jal2dev script (and maybe other tools)
so that the function libraries don't see a difference. It will
largely depend on the type of change (simple correction of a typo, a
not-so-trivial name change, or a more complicated 'systemetical' change).
So far I didn't look very closely at the changes between MPlab versions.
But I think next time we need to investigate the changes and decide what
we 'take or leave' before building new device files. \
"don't worry, be happy!"
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
