[PATCH v5 1/4] bsps/stm32f4 Include STM32F4 HAL
oss at c-mauderer.de
oss at c-mauderer.de
Sat Jul 30 20:19:54 UTC 2022
Am 30.07.22 um 21:41 schrieb Karel Gardas:
> On 7/30/22 16:32, oss at c-mauderer.de wrote:
>>> bsps/arm/include/cmsis_compiler.h | 266 +
>>> bsps/arm/include/cmsis_gcc.h | 3460 +--
>>> bsps/arm/include/cmsis_version.h | 39 +
>>> bsps/arm/include/core_cm4.h | 524 +-
>>> bsps/arm/include/core_cm7.h | 5186 ++--
>>> bsps/arm/include/mpu_armv7.h | 270 +
>> Are the cmsis files from the same source or directly from ARM?
>> The cmsis_gcc.h has a lot of changes compared to the earlier version
>> that has been present in RTEMS. A lot of the changes seem to be
>> whitespace changes. Can these be avoided somehow (for example by using
>> dos2unix before overwriting the file)?
>> In the discord chat there was one suggestion from Ho Kaido to move the
>> files one level down and make them BSP specific. I'm not sure whether
>> I'm for or against that idea. Advantage is that it makes BSPs
>> independant from each other. Disadvantage is that it duplicates code.
>> I think I would try to avoid moving them down due to the code
>> duplication but it raises the question: Which BSPs use the files too
>> and did you try whether they still compile after the upgrade?
> We have had this dicussion with Duc on discord IIRC when he started. He
> needed new CMSIS (v5) version due to new HAL which Duc claims depends on
> them. I have not verified that claim personally.
> New CMSIS v5 brings obviously:
> - by ARM maintained code (v4 is unmaintained IIRC)
> but also:
> - license change from BSD to Apache-2
> At that time I've told Duc to continue with the code and not to worry
> about license changes -- as this would be longer discussion anyway. Not
> sure, but IIRC he also wrote to Sebastian asking for clarification --
> well, not sure about that. Certainly IIRC I suggested that.
> Anyway, I took Duc code and try H7 BSPs and to my surprise they compiles
> more or less all without any compilation related issue. Well, I've not
> tried M4 variants. So far I've not run full tester on this. I'll, but
> first I'd like to test his API if it's possible to also use with H7.
> BTW: if RTEMS prefer old unmaintained BSD-3 ARM CSMIS code, then it's
> perhaps possible to go in F4 HAL history back and grab just the three
> with the v4 dependency. On the other hand, for ARM Apache-2 seems to be
> the way forward and for some ST.com depended code too -- so I guess
> RTEMS project will need to live with that fact somehow.
thanks for the clarification. I have to be honest: I missed the license
change. That is a bit of a difficult one and will cause a discussion.
@Duc: We need a new LICENSE.... file in the top level that represents
that. Maybe split the CMSIS update into a separate patch so that it is
clear why there is a new license file (if the license is only for the
CMSIS and not for the STM HAL too).
But my main concern was another one: Which BSPs use the CMSIS files?
Beneath the stm32 variants, that's at least the atsam and imxrt. Maybe I
missed some more. We should at least make sure that these BSPs are
compile-clean with the updated cmsis headers.
More information about the devel