I think that is one of the good use cases of devicetree. You could indeed easily change the device definition and have it generate the appropriate bindings.
Best, Matias On Fri, Oct 23, 2020, at 18:34, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:20 PM Alan Carvalho de Assis <acas...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > Sparkfun just created an interesting board ecosystem that could let > > people to replace the MCU module and still having access to the base > > board features: > > > > https://www.sparkfun.com/micromoddev > > > > https://www.sparkfun.com/micromod#carrier-boards > > > > https://www.sparkfun.com/micromod#processor_boards > > > > This solution allows you to develop a project with a microcontroller > > and latter change to another microcontroller without changing your > > base design. It should be a great solution to use with NuttX, because > > currently using NuttX (as it happens to Linux too), you can create > > your application and get it working independently from what processor > > your are using. > > > > What do you think guys? > > > Looks interesting. I think it's on-topic. But it throws a monkey wrench on > the way we support boards currently. Each combination of base board + > adapter + MCU is a separate "board" for NuttX, and possibly under a > different subdirectory of boards. How do we handle that? Perhaps a "board > generator" utility that asks a few questions and creates the code for your > combination? > > Just thinking out loud >
