Fix handling of isDefault' enumeratedValue's
#486
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
In the case that a register field has only a single `isDefault` `enumeratedValue` defined in the SVD file, don't emit an `_A` `enum` (as there are no valid variants to enumerate). Instead, emit a tuple struct with a single field which holds the value of the register field.
|
r? @adamgreig (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
S-waiting-on-review
smindinvern
changed the title
isDefault enumeratedValuesisDefault' enumeratedValue's
|
Comes initially from #485 |
|
Is there a specific svd file that exhibits this conflict? |
|
@therealprof: it was mentioned in #485, but specifically it happens with this file. One example is the <register>
<name>FSADDR</name>
<description>Flash Start Address</description>
<addressOffset>0x0030</addressOffset>
<size>32</size>
<access>read-write</access>
<resetValue>0x00000000</resetValue>
<resetMask>0xFFFFFFFF</resetMask>
<fields>
<field>
<name>FSA</name>
<description>Start Address of Flash Sequencer Command Target Area
These bits can be written when FRDY bit of FSTATR register is "1". Writing to these bits in FRDY = "0" is ignored.</description>
<lsb>0</lsb>
<msb>31</msb>
<access>read-write</access>
<enumeratedValues>
<enumeratedValue>
<name>others</name>
<description>Specifies start address for each command processing.</description>
<isDefault>true</isDefault>
</enumeratedValue>
</enumeratedValues>
</field>
</fields>
</register> |
|
Anything I could do to make this easier/more ready to review? |
therealprof
approved these changes
Jan 29, 2021
smindinvern
added a commit
to smindinvern/svd2rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, an
enumeratedValueis ignored if (and only if) it's name matches "reserved", and all remainingenumeratedValues are expected to have avaluechild element. However, the SVD schema allows anenumeratedValueto contain either avalueelement or anisDefaultelement. Whensvd2rusthits anisDefaultelement that isn't named "reserved", an error is thrown.In general, filtering these out should be safe, as they don't represent specific values that can be assigned to a field, but rather a range of values. The ability to read and write such arbitrary values is already handled with the
bits()method defined on field readers/writers. The one corner case, however, is for fields with only a singleenumeratedValuewhich has anisDefaultchild element. Attempting to handle these in the usual way results in emitting emptyenums which causes compilation failures. Instead, emit anewtypeencapsulating the field's base type.