Re: Porting to Cortex-M0+

Maureen Helm

Hi Piotr,

-----Original Message-----
From: Piotr Mienkowski [mailto:Piotr.Mienkowski(a)]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:09 AM
To: devel(a)
Subject: [devel] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Porting to Cortex-M0+

Hi Maureen,

Thanks for all the explanations. I've created a Jira issue to add support for
Atmel SAM E70 family. If it's approved I can work on it.

by the NXP ksdk and Nordic mdk. As far as folder structure goes, I
think anything under ext/hal/asf (or whatever we end up calling it) has some
freedom to do what makes sense.
I am actually more in favor of giving subfolders company names (currently the
style is mixed). The main reason being the fact that the various names of SDKs
tend to be cryptic so user may have trouble finding what he is looking for. Also
companies, once every few years, tend to change these names so acronyms
such as ksdk, qmsi, asf may one day get outdated.

For ext/hal/cmsis and ext/hal/ksdk, I tried to preserve the structure
from the original
I am too very much for preserving the structure of the original SDK

IANAL either, but will check with someone at LF on this.
You've mentioned in the post below that Zephyr TSC has to ask the governing
board to approve the ASF license. What should we do to trigger this?
I brought this to the TSC yesterday, and the decision was to first ask Atmel if they can change to a standard license already approved by the Zephyr governing board. Another member of the TSC will follow up with Atmel.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.