What is the preferable way to add new BSP (for stm32 family)
peter at awsmtek.com
Mon Sep 12 07:04:05 UTC 2022
There some bugs and design flaws in the existing stm32f4 bsp discovered. I
have fixed it locally as well as extended it a while (added pwm, uart, spi,
can). But have no time to prepare it and make a pull request. I can share
it with you if you want.
One important thing is to not glue console and UART drivers together. I
have separated it as console can work over USB, UART, Telnet and even SWO.
I think it would also be great to reuse device support files (e.g.
stm32f307x.h, etc.) provided by vendor and make a device selector option in
build configuration (even if it will be only a single device). The original
stm32f4 bsp was written and tested with stm32f407 but I use stm32f429.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 12:45 PM Y. HB <sprhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your great information !
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 9:57 PM Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz>
>> Not sure about recent progress but IIRC Duc Doan (cced) is also using
>> STM provided HAL for his work on GPIO driver for F4 BSP. Please see 
>> and .
>> If however you consider HAL to be too heavy weight solution, perhaps you
>> may have a look into STM provided LL (low-layers drivers) API? This
>> should be more light weight low level API but with less portability.
>> Please see UM1786.
>> Important question here is also a question of licensing. Last few
>> releases of at least H7 HAL were done under Apache 2.0 license. F4 seems
>> to be the same case and I would bet F3 would be same too. I mention that
>> as RTEMS developers still need to kind of discuss Apache 2.0 licensed
>> code in the project. Opinion were still not settled before summer
>> holidays break but I do not know if there is any movement on this front.
>> : https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/GSoC/2022
>> : https://medium.com/@dtbpkmte
>> On 9/10/22 18:20, Y. HB wrote:
>> > I have seen in rtems 6.0, there are two stm32 families: stm32f4 and
>> > The former one uses custom code to set up BSP, while the latter one
>> > the ST provided HAL lib to set up BSP.
>> > Now I need to add a BSP for stm32f3, which is very different (reg
>> > layout) from stm32f4.
>> > To add stm32f3 BSP as the stm32f4 approach is tedious and error prone,
>> > but slim codebase,
>> > the stm32h7 way has full capabilities provided via ST HAL, but may be
>> > too bloat if many stm32 families being added into source tree.
>> > So what is your suggestions? Which is a preferable way ?
>> > Thanks
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > users mailing list
>> > users at rtems.org
>> > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> users mailing list
> users at rtems.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users