Joel Sherrill wrote: > Joerg Wunsch wrote: > I can only offer project guidance below. >> How much of that could be auto-generated? How much of the different >> ADC MUX options of the various devices (single-ended, differential, >> differential with gain, internal bandgap measurement, internal >> temperature sensor) could possible be auto-generated? >> >> > Is is possible to define a set of C++ classes such that > each device "class" has a set. Say a set of timer classes > or ADC classes? Whether they are implemented immediately > or not, we could define the class interfaces and inheritance > structure. Here is the monkey work ;-) Atmel does currently not provide a list of IO-subsystem with identical names but different features. The first real boaring thing is to go through each CPU datasheet and find classes with identical IO-subsystem per IO-subsystem :-(. Okay, that workload might shrink a little for CPUs covered by the same datasheet But there are lots of AVR-CPUs and the number is increasing continuously.
I still wonder how AVRStudio is developed. People developed that simulator have the same problem. > Speaking from experience from RTEMS, very few people > can add major infrastructure and framework. But many > are capable of filling in the pieces. If we have the right > class structure automatically generated, then we are > making it our roadmap more obvious. We are all but > saying: "We need N timer classes to simulate the > supported set of AVR CPU models. Here are the > class names and how they map to each model." The point is "N" has to be defined. For sure N is bigger than 1 for several IO-Subsystems! _______________________________________________ Simulavr-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/simulavr-devel
