Sorry all; thought this was addressed to dev
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: will sanfilippo <wi...@runtime.io>
> Subject: Re: hal organization and multiple smaller packages
> Date: February 22, 2016 at 3:42:15 PM PST
> To: sterl...@apache.org
>
> See commen
On 2/22/16 1:24 PM, will sanfilippo wrote:
My 1/2 cent on this topic (and I certainly dont think you killed the
discussion; it is a difficult topic):
* I think the HAL is meant to be a fairly general, simple, abstraction.
Hopefully over time we will be able to incorporate more advanced HAL
On 2/21/16 8:39 PM, Sterling Hughes wrote:
BTW, I hope I didn't kill discussion on this one. :-)
I think this is an important topic to get right, and I'd like other
people's thoughts here as well.
And I should further add, one issue I'd also like to discuss -- Should
the HAL abstract away
BTW, I hope I didn't kill discussion on this one. :-)
I think this is an important topic to get right, and I'd like other
people's thoughts here as well.
Sterling
On 2/18/16 9:23 PM, Sterling Hughes wrote:
Paul -
I think you make a number of good points here, but I'm not sure all of
them
Paul -
I think you make a number of good points here, but I'm not sure all of
them argue for re-organizing the HAL, but perhaps just improving the
existing structure.
The purpose of the HAL is to abstract MCU peripheral functions, and make
that portable across various MCU architectures.
Just wanted to pass on some thoughts I had today about the hal ...
I was thinking about how much is in a hal, how it will grow over time and how
to tell "how complete" a given hal is. And more importantly how to provide
simple stuff that does basic HW (like polling GPIO) while allowing
