Please answer the questions:
1. are the aliases TX1 for TX etc, wrong (not needed, superfluous)?
2. are 'reverse' aliases TX for TX1 etc. needed?
3. if aliases (2) yes: in stead of or in addition to aliases (1)?
Rob.
On 12/30/11 09:45 pm, mattschinkel wrote:
Yes, it can wait. Thanks!
On Dec 30, 5:59 am, Rob Hamerling<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Matt,
On 12/30/11 11:16 am, mattschinkel wrote:
Rob, I was unable to find pin_tx in 18f67j50 device file. Can you
please have a look?
Your original request (see below) was to add an alias 'TX1' for 'TX' and
and an alias 'RX1' for 'RX'. At least that is what I understood.
I thought this was meant to be able to use serial libraries supporting 2
USARTs on a chip with only 1 USART.
From your 'complaint' above I understand it should have been the other
way around: being able to use a serial library supporting 1 USART on
chips with 2 USARTs. Correct?
Of course it can be done, but can it wait until after the next release?
I'm working on a significant change of the dev2jal script and I don't
want to change the device files before that time. And I also don't want
to mix 2 changes.
Regards, Rob.
On 29-10-11 03:28, mattschinkel wrote:
Is it possible for you to add TX1/RX1 to TX/RX aliases to the device
files? same as we did for SPI pins/registers?
--
R. Hamerling, Netherlands ---http://www.robh.nl
--
R. Hamerling, Netherlands --- 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.
