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


Maciek Borzecki <maciek.borzecki@...>
 

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Nashif, Anas <anas.nashif(a)intel.com> wrote:





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

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

<..snip..>


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.
Cool, I'll wait for your changes then.

I have a couple of updates lined up already, namely support for
interrupts on UART and GPIO input (might suquash that with the GPIO
patch anyway). There's also some initial support for EXTI and GPIO
interrupts, though this might require a number of iterations as the
STM32's way of handling this does not map that well to the GPIO driver
API.

Cheers,
--
Maciek Borzecki

Join devel@lists.zephyrproject.org to automatically receive all group messages.