What is the preferable way to add new BSP (for stm32 family)

[Y. HB]

Thanks for the info.  I am working on stm32f302/303 devices.

IMO, it would be better to use a script to generate corresponding BSP by
converting SVD files (https://github.com/posborne/cmsis-svd)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:00 PM Peter B <peter at awsmtek.com> wrote:

> 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>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 [1]
>>> and [2].
>>>
>>> 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[3].
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Karel
>>>
>>> [1]: https://devel.rtems.org/wiki/GSoC/2022
>>> [2]: https://medium.com/@dtbpkmte
>>> [3]:
>>>
>>> https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/user_manual/a6/79/73/ae/6e/1c/44/14/DM00122016.pdf/files/DM00122016.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.DM00122016.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/10/22 18:20, Y. HB wrote:
>>> > I have seen in rtems 6.0, there are two stm32 families: stm32f4 and
>>> stm32h7
>>> >
>>> > The former one uses custom code to set up BSP, while the latter one
>>> uses
>>> > 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
>> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20220913/7a6a02ac/attachment.htm>