If the project still has those datasheets, keep them! Those are an invaluable treasure and the "certificate" for the generated device files - and stored outside Microchip reach. The CEO and other executives of Microchip can change, and with them, also the rules. Maybe not many were able to observe this, but starting with 2014, there was an increased movement to contain the DIY (to own or control it) or at least, to increase the gap between the open projects and the closed ones that were made with paid tools. Right now, Microchip is working in replacing the gcc-avr (the one that was supported by Atmel) with the paid XC8 compiler. The PLIB is already history, and the new code for your own project is visually generated and partially copyrighted to Microchip. Be smart guys, keep the datasheets archived.
The PIC ports of SDCC compiler are neglected and the generated code increases in size from a version to another as the developers are mainly focused on STM8 devices. GPUTILS seems dormant these days. I won't express my opinion regarding the referred datasheet field in the device file as for me is ok either way. On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:58 AM Rob Jansen <rob...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I order to keep the maintenance of - the scripts of - device files > generation low I want to implement 2 changes. I also propose it as not to > carry any legacy that is no longer needed: > > 1) For each device file aliases are added for mapping of analog pins to a > logic sequence of numbers, so called 'JANSEL_xx'. I heard that the analog > library for this is no longer maintained. Next to that there are no sample > files that use these JANSEL aliases. In the scripts a lot of exceptions are > handled - due to inconsistencies from Microchip - to create these JANSEL > alias. I propose to remove the JANSEL aliases from the device files and > simplify the script. > > 2) Currently the device files are only generated when there is a data > sheet. I fully agree with this. However, the generation uses the number of > the datasheets which is frequently changed by Microchip. We already removed > the datasheets from GitHub since we could no longer automatically download > them. The number of the datasheet is also mentioned in the device file. > Datasheets can easily be found by just Google the PIC number. As to lower > the maintenance of the scripts I propose to remove the datasheet number > from the device file and from the script that generates them. Also the > 'datasheet.lst' file could be removed since in 'devicespecific.json' it is > mentioned if a datasheet is available or not. I am OK to keep the > datasheet.lst up to date but then by removing the number of the datasheet. > I also would like to remove the programming specification from this list > since they are not used in the generation of device files. > > Let me know your thought on these proposals. > > Thanks > > Kind regards, > > Rob > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jallib" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to jallib+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to jallib@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/jallib. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Vasi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jallib+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to jallib@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/jallib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
