I realize that the parts that have USART1 are consistent about thier
bit
placements. The point for having them for UART1 is so one does not have to
think "Oh, it's USART1, I should write my code differently". It's just
#defines, and makes for a consistent interface.
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how I stared straight at the
U0IE
and U0IFG and did see *those*...
--John
On Friday 31 October 2003 16:56 pm, Chris Liechti wrote:
> J.C. Wren wrote:
> > In uart.h, the module enable is abstracted into U0ME. Shouldn't we do
> > this for the interrupt bits (IE1 vs IE2, IFG1 vs IFG2) and add similiar
> > defines for UART1, for the sake of orthagonality (or however you spell
> > it...)?
>
> the U0ME/U0IE defines are there because F123 and F13x/14x are not the
> same. but its often practical to be able to compile a program for both
> targets (e.g. during developement with a larger MCU that in the final
> product, same lirary sources for all targets, etc)
>
> that is not the case with the uart1 as the only series with it is the F14x.
>
> > I find I have to have 2 uart0.c files, one for parts with a single UART,
> > and another for those with dual UARTs, because the interrupt enables and
> > such are different. I could put my own #defines around it, but that
> > doesn't seem as clean as astracting it into uart.h
>
> patches to uart.h are welcome ;-)
> if it makes sense we can incorporate them.
>
> chris
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it
> help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Mspgcc-users mailing list
> Mspgcc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mspgcc-users
