Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port

Boie, Andrew P

On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 21:35 +0000, Kalowsky, Daniel wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Summing up, what you're basically suggesting is having a structure
like this (assumig that we keep vendor prefix for the time being):


If we're on the same page then i"ll post some patches tomorrow. Seems
like an easy fix.
Yes, the only different from what you have right now is having 1 level less. I
think everything else should stay the same.
I not convinced that is any good. You're essentially going to create a larger mess of MCUs in the arch/arm/soc directory.

The goal of keeping everything in a common directory (st_stm32) is to enforce maximum sharing between MCUs where possible. For example, the stm32f1_init is really the same for the STM32F{1 | 2 | 3 | 4 }x MCUs. Moving this into an upper level "common" area, not only makes it difficult to find, it just creates confusion as we add in future platforms.
Do we need another layer of abstraction in the build for SoC variants? I
share Dan's concerns, I think it may be better to have st_stm32/ SoC and
then subdirectories with variants thereof, with common code at the

This would mean we have inheritance as follows: arch / soc /
soc_variant / board. This would be something fully supported by the
build system, like it knows about arches / boards / socs now.

Not keen on collapsing all this to just soc/.

Andrew Boie
Staff Engineer - EOS Zephyr
Intel Open Source Technology Center

Join to automatically receive all group messages.