This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: at91 HAL patch
- From: "Koeller, T." <Thomas dot Koeller at baslerweb dot com>
- To: 'Andrew Lunn' <andrew dot lunn at ascom dot ch>
- Cc: ecos-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:39:34 +0200
- Subject: RE: at91 HAL patch
Just another related thought:
Wouldn't it be more sensible to include the platform header
(plf_io.h) at the end of var_io.h instead of near the beginning,
as is the case now? Then its contents could refer to the
definitions contained in var_io.h, for example, assign
meaningful (in the platform context) names to I/O pins.
Thomas Koeller, Software Development
Basler Vision Technologies
An der Strusbek 60-62
Tel +49 (4102) 463-390
Fax +49 (4102) 463-46390
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 3:24 PM
> To: Laurent GONZALEZ
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: at91 HAL patch
> > > Well, we already have the CYGHWR_HAL_ARM_AT91 option that
> must be set
> > > in the platform HAL to select the correct AT91 variant.
> This is used
> > > in var_io.h to differentiate between different power-saving
> > > devices. The same option should be used to select
> different sets of
> > > PIO pin definitions.
> > True. To avoid problems the recently added definitions should be
> > surrounded with the good #ifdef #endif directive.
> OK. Could you give me a list of which AT91 varients do/do not support
> the Parrallel IO register.