Laurent Gauch wrote:
under target directories we should add the architecture family
directories as
- target
- arm
- STM32
stm32f103rb.cfg
stm32f107v8.cfg
stm32f100rb.cfg
This gets quite annoying to type when specifying the target, and it
makes it necessary to ha
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Laurent Gauch wrote:
>>
>> I think that you raise an excellent point here: automate this.
>>
>> It would be much better if we could draw up a plan to
>> automate more of the configuration rather than
>> organize hundreds to thousands of configuration files.
>>
>> Wh
I think that you raise an excellent point here: automate this.
It would be much better if we could draw up a plan to
automate more of the configuration rather than
organize hundreds to thousands of configuration files.
What we have to day are basically a bunch of more or less
tested example fil
I think that you raise an excellent point here: automate this.
It would be much better if we could draw up a plan to
automate more of the configuration rather than
organize hundreds to thousands of configuration files.
What we have to day are basically a bunch of more or less
tested example files
Hi!
Currently there is no single scheme used. Some chips (like STM32) use
only one generic target cfg file with (more or less accurate) default
values that (more or less) suit the whole family. Other chips (like LPC
from NXP) have separate cfg files for each chip.
In a recent discussion (Pr
--- On Tue, 11/2/10, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>
> I don't know what the answer is long term. I would, like
> you,
> like to hear thoughts from others on this.
There's a bug filed about us not reporting the
memory maps correctly, with specific reference
to RAM/SRAM regions. Fixing that would help
Main con:
- a lot of files (there are >80 stm32f's, and so on)
? Since there are 80 some odd versions - could a number of these items
be determined directly from the part number?
Look at the ordering information from this STM32 PDF
http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/150
>> Also, I'd like something that is pretty close to what we want
>> long term.
>
> You'll have to tell what you want long term then...
I don't know what the answer is long term. I would, like you,
like to hear thoughts from others on this.
--
Øyvind Harboe
US toll free 1-866-980-3434 / Internati
On 2010-11-02 21:32, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
I think you're looking at a real problem here, but I'd be loathe
to charge off in a particular direction here until we've had some
time to let the idea mature and cool off.
Fine with me, but I'm affraid that this good idea may die if it will be
put "o
I think you're looking at a real problem here, but I'd be loathe
to charge off in a particular direction here until we've had some
time to let the idea mature and cool off.
I'd like any design here to be "at least 30% better" than what
we have today, i.e. noticeably better to just about anybody
w
Hi!
Currently there is no single scheme used. Some chips (like STM32) use
only one generic target cfg file with (more or less accurate) default
values that (more or less) suit the whole family. Other chips (like LPC
from NXP) have separate cfg files for each chip.
In a recent discussion (Pro
11 matches
Mail list logo
