dita-sidsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: bitFieldReset issue
- From: "Park Seth-R01164" <R01164@freescale.com>
- To: "Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee" <dita-sidsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:56 -0700
It says that "The
<bitFieldResetValue> and <bitFieldresetValueSource> elements are
mutually exclusive," which means that you can have...
EITHER
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetValueSource>HRESET</bitFieldResetValueSource>
<bitFieldResetTrig>System Reset</bitFieldResetTrig>
</bitFieldReset>
OR
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetValue>0</bitFieldResetValue>
<bitFieldResetTrig>System
Reset</bitFieldResetTrig>
</bitFieldReset>
BUT
NEVER
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetValue>0</bitFieldResetValue>
<bitFieldResetValueSource>System
Reset</bitFieldResetValueSource>
</bitFieldReset>
I'm trying to
capture a field definition of a field that has a different reset value when the
reset source is from a "Power on Reset". When it is a system reset, the field
resets to "0"; when it is a POR, it resets to "1". But the data model does not
allow this combination.
Can we agree that
this is a valid combination and that the DTD/spec should be
relaxed?
-seth
--------------------------------------------
seth park
information architect
Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.
512.895.2463
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]