Philosophy of _bm vs _gm suffixes

[stefanrueger]

One ostensibly signifies the notion of a one-bit bit-mask while the other denote multi-bit bitmasks. But when is that distinction in the constant name actually useful? I mean when I don't know whether something (say a clock frequency selector) has two (one bit) or more (multiple bits) selections, how should I proceed?

On the other hand I can always count the number of bits set when I have the pattern. The name of the constant does not need to encode that.

Would it not be better to always use the suffix _bm?

[dl8dtl]

IIRC these names came straight from Atmel.

[stefanrueger]

IIRC these names came straight from Atmel.

Should employ more people who pass the Sally-Anne-test.

[dl8dtl]

Btw., I'm always hesitant to change things that have been that way for 10+ years. Regardless of whether they make any sense or not, you can never know who might actually be using them out there.

[stefanrueger]

Sure, can and should keep all there is, but that wouldn't preclude duplicating those _gm constants also as _bm constants (or a new one _mask). I admit it's probably not worth the trouble, as there are much bigger inconsistencies in naming registers etc - this was actually more of a question out of curiosity (as I didn't want to presume there wasn't much thought behind these decisions).