Decisions relating to configuration

[GoogleCodeExporter]

an we automate some of the test procedure for creating config 
permutations ?
-mem says: I think that any tool we make now would become obsolete when we 
introduce a wizard so it would be good if there was something simple, 
otherwise we create variations by  hand using the text editor 

Should we drop official (i.e. tested) support for the less likely options 
in the first public release (e.g. the 4 chips options) – we would keep the 
code and possibly the config options, but document that these are not 
supported in this release.
-mem view: we test all permutations once (although the 3 and 4 chip 
options may have to wait until next week), but if the config files need 
iteration we consider dropping official support for the less likely 
permuations

Do we need to document that the config file structure may change in a 
future release (for example, to support a wizard or some future IDE 
library config capability)
- mem says: We add a note in the documentation that the configuration 
mechanism is subject to constant improvement; user changes to customize 
any of the configuration files may required re-editing in a future 
release.  

Should we change the naming of custom config files to prevent confusion 
with users that want to customize an auto-config file.
-mem says: here is one option, change:
  #include "config/ks0108_Custom_Config.h"  // generic ks0108 
configuration 
to:
  #include "config/ks0108_Manual_Config.h"  // Generic user selected  
ks0108 configuration 

The define for the configuration would match the name scheme we adopt,  
assuming the above
 #define glcd_ConfigName "Arduino-ks0108"
 #define glcd_ConfigName "Manual_ks0108"  // config name for ks0108 manual 
config (a comment should advise the user to change the name if he changes 
the file)

Should diags display a #define identifying the name of the autoconfig file 
if one was active

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bperry...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 7:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Slight twist on the "4 chip" capability.
While people with displays that use 4 chips might be rare, users may want to 
hook up
multiple displays, and that case, a "4 chip" configuration is used to create a 
larger
"logical" display using 2 displays with 2 chips.

Just something to keep in mind.

Maybe for that somewhat odd case, a special configuration file could be provided
already set up for dual ks0108s creating a 128x128 logical display.

Original comment by bperry...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2011 at 7:05