There some bugs and design flaws in the existing stm32f4 bsp discovered. I have fixed it locally as well as extended it a while (added pwm, uart, spi, can). But have no time to prepare it and make a pull request. I can share it with you if you want.
One important thing is to not glue console and UART drivers together. I have separated it as console can work over USB, UART, Telnet and even SWO. I think it would also be great to reuse device support files (e.g. stm32f307x.h, etc.) provided by vendor and make a device selector option in build configuration (even if it will be only a single device). The original stm32f4 bsp was written and tested with stm32f407 but I use stm32f429. On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 12:45 PM Y. HB <sprh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your great information ! > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 9:57 PM Karel Gardas <karel.gar...@centrum.cz> > wrote: > >> >> Not sure about recent progress but IIRC Duc Doan (cced) is also using >> STM provided HAL for his work on GPIO driver for F4 BSP. Please see [1] >> and [2]. >> >> If however you consider HAL to be too heavy weight solution, perhaps you >> may have a look into STM provided LL (low-layers drivers) API? This >> should be more light weight low level API but with less portability. >> Please see UM1786[3]. >> >> Important question here is also a question of licensing. Last few >> releases of at least H7 HAL were done under Apache 2.0 license. F4 seems >> to be the same case and I would bet F3 would be same too. I mention that >> as RTEMS developers still need to kind of discuss Apache 2.0 licensed >> code in the project. Opinion were still not settled before summer >> holidays break but I do not know if there is any movement on this front. >> >> Thanks, >> Karel >> >> [1]: https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/GSoC/2022 >> [2]: https://medium.com/@dtbpkmte >> [3]: >> >> https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/user_manual/a6/79/73/ae/6e/1c/44/14/DM00122016.pdf/files/DM00122016.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.DM00122016.pdf >> >> >> On 9/10/22 18:20, Y. HB wrote: >> > I have seen in rtems 6.0, there are two stm32 families: stm32f4 and >> stm32h7 >> > >> > The former one uses custom code to set up BSP, while the latter one >> uses >> > the ST provided HAL lib to set up BSP. >> > >> > Now I need to add a BSP for stm32f3, which is very different (reg >> > layout) from stm32f4. >> > >> > To add stm32f3 BSP as the stm32f4 approach is tedious and error prone, >> > but slim codebase, >> > the stm32h7 way has full capabilities provided via ST HAL, but may be >> > too bloat if many stm32 families being added into source tree. >> > >> > So what is your suggestions? Which is a preferable way ? >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > users mailing list >> > users@rtems.org >> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ users mailing list users@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
