More, having lots of warnings if your dev2jal script is not a good reason to
modify the input source. If you need me to clean things in
pinmap_pinsuffix.json, let me know ! (and not in pinmap.py, which is a
highly previous source of information should contain as many information as
possible).
For instance, if you want to clean this:
"16F59": {
"RA0": [],
"RA1": [],
"RA2": [],
"RA3": [],
"RB0": [],
"RB1": [],
"RB2": [],
"RB3": [],
"RB4": [],
"RB5": [],
"RB6": [ "ICSPCLK"],
"RB7": ["ICSPDAT"],
"RC0": [],
"RC1": [],
"RC2": [],
"RC3": [],
"RC4": [],
"RC5": [],
"RC6": [],
"RC7": [],
"RD0": [],
"RD1": [],
"RD2": [],
"RD3": [],
"RD4": [],
"RD5": [],
"RD6": [],
"RD7": [],
"RE4": [],
"RE5": [],
"RE6": [],
"RE7": []
}
to:
"16F59": {
"RB6": [ "ICSPCLK"],
"RB7": ["ICSPDAT"],
}
Let me know, I'll modify extract_pininfos.py as needed.
Cheers,
Seb
--
Sébastien Lelong
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org
2009/8/9 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> Sebastien Lelong wrote:
>
> > I'm sure to understand why you want to modify pinmap.py. Can you give an
> > example ?
> > Also remember pin aliases & dups are dealth with pinmap_pinsuffix.json
> file.
>
> I just want to update/complete it for the pins without aliases (one
> reason being to reduce the many messages I get with the dev2jal script).
> But do not want having to type pin names when the pin doesn't have an
> alias: which contributes exactly nothing to the contents of the device
> files. So while editing pinmap.py I might as well remove superfluous
> stuff (I suppose JSG will tell me at some time that pinmap.py contains
> only pins with a 'real' alias, as we agreed upon today!).
>
> Regards, Rob.
>
>
> >
> > Seb
> > --
> > Sébastien Lelong
> > http://www.sirloon.net
> > http://sirbot.org
> >
> >
> > 2009/8/9 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Sebastien Lelong wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Now I'm about to update pinmap.py I see 2 methods of saying 'no alias'
> >>>> in pinmap.py:
> >>>> 1. do not mention the pin at all
> >>>> 2. mention the pin, but only with its own name as alias
> >>>> The first is probably the most efficient, but the second shows that
> the
> >>>> pin is not (accidently) forgotten.
> >>>> I think we should use only one method, and nevertheless the argument
> >>>> above I would prefer the first. What's your opinion?
> >>>
> >>> I prefer option 1 too. Pins can't be accidentally forgotten, a whole
> PIC
> >>> can. (but pins can be wrong...)
> >> OK, I'll skip (/remove) pins without any alias.
> >> I'll change the dev2jal script such that it gives 1 (just 1) warning
> >> when a whole PIC is missing. Currently the script generates far to many
> >> warnings one for each pin without alias!
> >>
> >> Regards, Rob.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
> >>
>
> --
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
