Hi Rob, Sound sensible to me! The only risc I see is that keywords look the same but turn out to be similar later on. But if this should be the case, I'm sure we (you ;) can handle this.
An aother thing we should be aware of is that with this aproach, we make an exception to the rule that the microchip documents are leading. But that's good, since it is called new insight ;) Would it make sense to keep the original keyword, next to the jallib-normalized one? Again, I think this is a good idea. Joep 2009/7/18 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>: > > > Hi guys, > > From the beginning I have been struggling with the large variety of > names Microchip used in MPLAB for the configuration words, especially to > specify Oscillator configurations. The main cause of these variety is > that MPLAB doesn't use *names*, like in the datasheets, but a > *description*, which can be a few letters, like HS, XT, or EC but not > infrequently also whole sentences, like: > > EC OSCILLATOR, CLKOUT FUNCTION ON OSC2 (MEDIUM POWER, 160 KHZ - 4 MHZ) > > These descriptions may differ only in a few characters or can look > totally different, while these are the same. Example: > >> INTERNAL OSCILLATOR BLOCK, CLKOUT FUNCTION ON RA6, PORT FUNCTION ON RA7 >> INT RC-CLKOUT ON OSC2 > > In these descriptions (from different PICS) it is totally irrelevant for > the fuse_def specification which is clock output pin and which the I/O > pin. Therefore these descriptions could both be specified as: > > INTOSC_CLKOUT > > In the current dev2jal script I parse the description and try to catch > synonyms. But I'm not satisfied: it doesn't catch all variations and as > a result the device files contain very complicated OSC names! > I'm now experimenting with a different method. I build a table with all > descriptions and assign (manually!) a normalized name to each > description. This name will replace the MPLAB description. It is a > one-off job which requires some more datasheet reading, and the table > has to be maintained manually when descriptions change or new PICs > appear in MPLAB, but I think it is worth the effort. > > Although 'fuse_def OSC' has the most variations some other configuration > bits have a similar issue. I'll design the mentioned table such that it > can also be used for other fuse_def keywords. > > The result of this will definitely be that current samples with fuse_def > specifications will have to be adapted for the new names. We'll let > Seb's robot do the detection! > > Same applies to your own private programs: you have been warned! > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
