Thanks for the info. I am working on stm32f302/303 devices. IMO, it would be better to use a script to generate corresponding BSP by converting SVD files (https://github.com/posborne/cmsis-svd)
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:00 PM Peter B <pe...@awsmtek.com> wrote: > 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
