Folks,
I am thinking of changind some io API (not really changing, but extensions).
So, will it worth if we declare ports as structures:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
typedef union port {
volatile unsigned char reg_p;
volatile struct {
unsigned __p0:1, __p1:1, __p2:1, __p3:1, __p4:1, __p5:1, __p6:1, __p7:1;
} __pin;
} ioport_t;
#define pin0 __pin.__p0
#define pin1 __pin.__p1
#define pin2 __pin.__p2
#define pin3 __pin.__p3
#define pin4 __pin.__p4
#define pin5 __pin.__p5
#define pin6 __pin.__p6
#define pin7 __pin.__p7
typedef struct {
ioport_t in, out,dir,ifg,ies,ie,sel;
} xport_t;
xport_t port0 asm("0x10");
/// and so on...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, user can write:
port0.out.pin1 = 1;
xxx = port0.in.pin2;
port0.reg_p = 0x7e;
or something.
Of course this will not discard existing declarations.
If we're going to add this declaration to header files, we need to choose a
name for portX. Will 'port0 .. port6' be suitable for it?
Or just forget about it?
~d
/********************************************************************
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ (\ Dimmy the Wild UA1ACZ
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Enterprise Information Sys
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' Nevsky prospekt, 20 / 44
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Saint Petersburg, Russia
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' +7 (812) 3468202, 5585314
********************************************************************/
