dita-sidsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-sidsc] bitFieldReset issue
- From: Bob Beims <rwbc70@freescale.com>
- To: Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee<dita-sidsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:00:44 -0600
Title: Re: [dita-sidsc] bitFieldReset issue
Because a <bitFieldPropset> may contain more than one <bitFieldReset> element, would this not be coded as:
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetTrig>System Reset</bitFieldResetTrig>
<bitFieldResetValue>0</bitFieldResetValue>
</bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetTrig>POR</bitFieldResetValueResetTrig>
<bitFieldResetValue>1</bitFieldResetValue>
</bitFieldReset>
Am I missing something in your question?
Then I’m thinking there might be a case where this would be the appropriate coding for a third child of the same <bitFieldPropset>:
<bitFieldReset>
<bitFieldResetTrig>Soft Reset</bitFieldResetValueTrig>
<bitFieldResetValueSource>SoftResetControlBit</bitFieldValueSource>
</bitFieldReset>
I think the data model supports that, right?
Bob
From: Park Seth-R01164 <R01164@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:10:56 -0700
To: Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee <dita-sidsc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita-sidsc] bitFieldReset issue
I'm having trouble understanding the intent of the bitFieldRest rules in the most recent lang spec (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-sidsc/download.php/32513/ditaref-sidsc-book-d-090512-review.pdf)
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.
seth.park@freescale.com
512.895.2463
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]