On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Weddington, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm open to ideas on a naming scheme. >> >> >>I'm working on the duplicate thing and I'm facing a >> critical issue. It >> >> has been decided that we should not care mutch if pins where active >> >> low or active high(such as SS, RD, WR, etc). >> >> Use whatever_asserted and whatever_deasserted. > > We should only have to mark signals that are inverted. What naming scheme > should be used that's *short* and easily memorized? >
It seems that this particular problem only affects Output compare. SS, RD, WR, RESET, will never have an identical pin but reversed. Would it be then a good idea to have let says: #define OC1A_DDR .... #define OC1AN_DDR ... "N" as in negative or "I" as in Inverted. I don't like "I" as it can be mistaken for a lower case "L". Any though on that? As a side note, I had to modify some AVR Studio XML(Some had duplicate entries or invalids one) to generate my patch(patch generation is pending due to the current issue). Should I include a patch for the Atmel XML also? Frédéric _______________________________________________ AVR-libc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
