Permit duplicate "reserved" fields.#93
Open
inferiorhumanorgans wants to merge 1 commit intoembassy-rs:mainfrom
Open
Permit duplicate "reserved" fields.#93inferiorhumanorgans wants to merge 1 commit intoembassy-rs:mainfrom
inferiorhumanorgans wants to merge 1 commit intoembassy-rs:mainfrom
Conversation
Renesas uses multiple fields named `Reserved` within the same register in a few different places in e.g. the RA4M1 SVD. This would preserve the existing behavior of forbidding duplicate field names except where it appears to be deliberate. Alternatively should duplicate field names be allowed and then deduplicated in the sanitize transform?
Contributor
|
I think duplicate field names automagically transforming to fields with a number suffix is fine. Emitting an error seems redundant. Chiptool generally does not require to fix the SVD itself. Rather we fix the defs afterwards in transforms. Hence the SVD parser should be maximally generous. I would say remove the "eserved" section and its good. Currently your PR does it both in sanitize and in the conversion. Only the latter would be sufficient. |
Wassasin
requested changes
Feb 27, 2026
Comment on lines
+31
to
+34
| for (_, fieldset) in ir.fieldsets.iter_mut() { | ||
| rename_duplicate_fields(fieldset); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sanitize is superfluous if also done during the parsing.
Comment on lines
+100
to
+112
| fn rename_duplicate_fields(fieldset: &mut crate::ir::FieldSet) { | ||
| use std::collections::BTreeMap; | ||
|
|
||
| let mut name_counts: BTreeMap<String, usize> = BTreeMap::new(); | ||
|
|
||
| for f in fieldset.fields.iter_mut() { | ||
| let count = name_counts.entry(f.name.clone()).or_insert(0); | ||
| *count += 1; | ||
| if *count > 1 { | ||
| f.name = format!("{}_{count:x}", f.name); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
| field_name_counts.entry(field_name.clone()).or_insert(0); | ||
| *field_name_count += 1; | ||
| if *field_name_count > 1 { | ||
| if field_name.contains("eserved") { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can do this for any field, no need for the exception.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Renesas uses multiple fields named
Reservedwithin the same register in a few different places in e.g. the RA4M1 SVD. This would preserve the existing behavior of forbidding duplicate field names except where it appears to be deliberate.Alternatively should duplicate field names be allowed and then deduplicated in the sanitize transform?