Dear Anton Staaf,
In message CAF6FioVcfgxzep7dhgxYR+cjaf0nQ8LYBxKvEaqycz8NOoSWDA@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
That makes sense to me. Would an alternative that uses the "width" and "size" of the field be acceptable? Then there is a well understood (on both types of architectures) mapping from these values to the mask and shift required to access portions of a register and/or variable in memory.
"width" and "size" seem indentical to me here. Do you mean "width" and "offset" or so? The problem still remains. People who are used to number bits from left to right will also tend to count bit offsets in the same direction.
In the end, the most simple and truly portable way is specifying the masks directly. What's wrong with definitions like
#define SCFR1_IPS_DIV_MASK 0x03800000 #define SCFR1_PCI_DIV_MASK 0x00700000 #define SCFR1_LPC_DIV_MASK 0x00003800
etc.?
I can actually read these much faster that any of these bit field definitions.
--00504502e3b9570ace04a7e593ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Please stop posting HTML.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk