Re: [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port
On 09/03/2016, 19:51, "Boie, Andrew P" <andrew.p.boie(a)intel.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 21:35 +0000, Kalowsky, Daniel wrote:Where did you see a new layer in what I said? The current patch and adding st_stm32 is adding a new layer. st_stm32 is not an SoC, its an architecture (just like there is STM8) that has different variants (M0+, M3, M4, …) that have additional SoCs. st_stm32 is something comparable to Quark from x86. So with this patch and looking at the Kconfig variables we haveDo we need another layer of abstraction in the build for SoC variants?-----Original Message-----I not convinced that is any good. You're essentially going to create a larger mess of MCUs in the arch/arm/soc directory.Summing up, what you're basically suggesting is having a structureYes, the only different from what you have right now is having 1 level less. I
arch / doc family or architecture / soc variant / soc / board
IThis the design as we have now (and it was proposed and discussed). Under soc/ we have frdm-k64f, atmel_sam3 which are SoCs and not sub-architectures. If you think we need another layer, then we need to change this across the board and not only for STM32.