Re: STM32F103x port

Kalowsky, Daniel <daniel.kalowsky@...>

-----Original Message-----
From: Nashif, Anas
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 8:12 AM
To: Walsh, Benjamin (Wind River) <benjamin.walsh(a)>
Cc: Brandewie, Dirk J <dirk.j.brandewie(a)>; Maciek Borzecki
<maciek.borzecki(a)>; devel(a); Kalowsky,
Daniel <daniel.kalowsky(a)>; users(a)
Subject: Re: [devel] Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port

On 2 Mar 2016, at 10:54, Benjamin Walsh
<benjamin.walsh(a)> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 10:17:17AM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:

On 02/29/2016 02:26 PM, Kalowsky, Daniel wrote:
-----Original Message-----
First suggestion, create an arch/arm/soc/stm32, and use the Kconfig
allow selecting of the various flavors of the STM32 chip. This would
be similar to what you've already got with the
file, merged with the values from your Kconfig.soc. Then keeping the
Kconfig to the pieces generic to all the STM32 portions (i.e. flash
size, base address, etc).

Makes sense. I think we should also add another 'MCU family' level of
hierarchy. We would have then:

<soc specific>
<soc specific>
<soc specific>
I'm not opposed to this.

Ben/Dirk any commentary?
Having thought about it for 10 seconds it seems reasonable :-) To the
greatest extent reasonable please avoid link time binding of SOC specifc
code into the generic stm32 code. We don't want to the next guy to
wonder which init() function is called.
The main issue with this is the fact that stm32 extends all the way from M0
to M7, in total set of 11 series

• STM32F0 Series
• STM32F1 Series
• STM32F2 Series
• STM32F3 Series
• STM32F4 Series
• STM32F7 Series
• STM32L0 Series
• STM32L1 Series
• STM32L4 Series
• STM32T Series
• STM32W Series

where each series can have up to 10 different SoCs in some cases.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Is this a positive or negative to the proposed solution?

Join to automatically receive all group messages.