On 19 Aug 2011, at 11:11, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Am 19.08.2011 12:02, schrieb John Clymer: >> So, consensus is to include the register definitions - then I will work >> on these. To get all the possible register structures for all possible >> peripherals will take some time. And naming conventions come into play >> as well. >> >> I prefer having my device registers defined in structures. Other people >> prefer non-structured "flat" definitions for the registers. >> >> i.e. >> >> PortA -> DDR >> PortA -> PIN
surely porta.ddr >> >> vs. >> >> DDRA >> PINA >> >> The current stellaris has a start for structures, unless there are >> objections, I would continue with these. >> >> The actual names of the registers will be best to match the datasheet >> (otherwise, non-compiler writing / source reading people will need a >> manual [and somewhat lengthy one at that] to provide the correcting >> naming of each peripheral and register.) yes, it would be best to take them from the C definitions in 'stellarisware'. I shortened and changed some of them as they were unnecessarily flowery or obscure. >> BUT - there is no standard for >> what the peripheral structure instances should be named - so again, this >> would need to be documented if the target audience is people that won't >> be tearing the compiler apart. [And again, more work...] > > Afaik there is a standard for the Cortex platform how to do it, google > for "ARM Cortex Microcontroller Software Interface Standard" there is a generic doc on the arm.com site and a stellaris specific one on the TI site. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
