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

Nashif, Anas

On 14/03/2016, 22:46, "Kalowsky, Daniel" <daniel.kalowsky(a)> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Maciek Borzecki [mailto:maciek.borzecki(a)]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:19 AM
To: Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif(a)>; Kalowsky, Daniel
<daniel.kalowsky(a)>; Walsh, Benjamin (Wind River)
Cc: Boie, Andrew P <andrew.p.boie(a)>;
users(a); devel(a)
Subject: Re: [devel] [users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: STM32F103x port


Do we have a consensus on this matter then? Did you get a chance to
discuss this internally?
Sorry I was out of the office today, and most likely delayed Anas's hope of delivering a solution by EOD. That said, he reviewed the patch online, and for some reason Gerrit won't take my response.

Anas correctly highlights that your initial patch should not advertise the support for the STM32F{ 2 | 3 | 4} MCUs, those should be added when that support comes in. I completely overlooked this, sorry about that.

I am working right now on defining a new layer in Kconfig and reorganising Kconfig for this purpose and will take the STM32 changes and propose better structure for all architectures and existing SoCs.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.