On 26-10-16 16:52, Neil Jones wrote:
Hi,
What is RIOT's position on using named bitfields for register
definitions ? I know they are frown upon as there are no endian
guarantees in the C standard, personally I don't use them, but the PIC32
device files supplied by Microchip do include bitfield structures for
most registers so could make life easier ? (thankfully there are #define
for most register fields too, if the answer is not to use them).
I can't speak for RIOT, but personally I don't have a problem with them
when they are used for register definitions.
And I know that SAMD21 uses them too in Atmel's CMSIS include files.
In many cases it makes the code much nicer. That doesn't mean the
SAMD21 already uses them a lot. For example, we currently have code
like
dev(bus)->CTRLA.reg |= SERCOM_SPI_CTRLA_SWRST;
while ((dev(bus)->CTRLA.reg & SERCOM_SPI_CTRLA_SWRST) ||
(dev(bus)->SYNCBUSY.reg & SERCOM_SPI_SYNCBUSY_SWRST));
...
while (!(dev(bus)->INTFLAG.reg & SERCOM_SPI_INTFLAG_DRE)) {}
...
dev(bus)->CTRLA.reg &= ~(SERCOM_SPI_CTRLA_ENABLE);
which could use bitfields and be written like this
dev(bus)->CTRLA.bit.SWRST = 1;
while ((dev(bus)->CTRLA.bit.SWRST) ||
(dev(bus)->SYNCBUSY.bit.SWRST)) {}
...
while (!(dev(bus)->INTFLAG.bit.DRE)) {}
...
dev(bus)->CTRLA.bit.ENABLE = 0;
--
Kees
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@riot-os.org
https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
