Unify the low-power peripheral names (RTC_CNTL and LP_CLKRST to LPWR)
#1064
Conversation
playfulFence
force-pushed
the
unify_rtccntl
branch
from
62ce066 to
83c6557
Compare
playfulFence
force-pushed
the
unify_rtccntl
branch
from
83c6557 to
bdd63e5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks for taking care of this!
@bjoernQ @MabezDev (or anybody else), if you have strong feelings about the name of this peripheral please let me know. We never came to a consensus really in the linked issue, so we just made a choice so we could move forward with this. Obviously I think the choice we made is reasonable, but we can change it if there is good reason to.
|
@MabezDev @jessebraham There're still a lot of places where old naming is used without a problem/ necessary, same as in
|
|
I think I'm fine with the new naming. Those places where we internally use the old name to get a pointer is probably a non-issue I'd say. Maybe the only confusing thing about it is, that we use two different names for the same thing but even if we change it in the implementation details everyone still needs to keep it in mind since e.g. the TRMs (and the rest of the world) call it by their TRM names |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks for taking care of this!
Regarding the leftover namings, some of them are intentional, for example in the places you see SYSTEM/DPORT, that is there to help with search-ability, because if you're looking for DPORT on an esp32 and you only see SYSTEM that can be a little confusing at first. Maybe there is a better way to portray this information though 🤔.
closes #872