From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10911 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2011 10:30:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 10876 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2011 10:30:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtpo19.poczta.onet.pl (HELO smtpo19.poczta.onet.pl) (213.180.142.150) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:30:04 +0000 Received: from pkn6.m5r2.onet (pkn6.m5r2.onet [10.174.32.167]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id F127EA8159; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:28:15 +0100 (CET) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [217.6.141.85] by pkn6.m5r2.onet via HTTP id 201102231128144940010001; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:28:15 +0100 From: qber_@poczta.onet.pl To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org,Gian Maria Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:30:00 -0000 Message-Id: <24682372-b9dd466618d028fde4d3ede7a9523ce8@pkn6.m5r2.onet> Subject: RE: STM32F107 on STM3210C-EVAL X-Onet-PMQ: ;217.6.141.85;DE;2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 Hello. As it is in description the main diffrences in STM32F familly are on-board = flash and ram. So if you are using STM32F107VC you can use F103VC variant. Between STM32F107VC and STM32103VD the main diffrences are in their periphe= lias: 3xSPI;2xI2S;2xI2C;3xUSART;2xUART;SDIO;USB;CAN = STM32103 3xSPI;2xI2S;2xI2C;3xUSART;2xUART;USB OTG FS;2xCAN;Ethernet MAC10/100;one ad= d timer STM32107 As you can see here the drivers only you will have to support are for perip= helias which are missing in 103. Best regards Qber P.S. Sorry for the first mail - some stupid mail box error. W dniu 2011-03-22 20:15:36 u=C5=BCytkownik Gian Maria napisa=C5=82: > I'm porting eCos to STM3210C and I find a logical error on the > implementation of CYGPKG_HAL_CORTEXM_STM32. > CYGPKG_HAL_CORTEXM_STM32 must be the base of all STM32 uP and so is not > correct for me to use >=20 > cdl_option CYGHWR_HAL_CORTEXM_STM32 { > display "STM32 variant in use" > flavor data > default_value {"F103ZE"} > legal_values {"F103RC" "F103VC" "F103ZC" > "F103RD" "F103VD" "F103ZD" > "F103RE" "F103VE" "F103ZE" } > description "The STM32 has several variants, the main > differences > being in the size of on-chip FLASH and SRAM > and numbers of some peripherals. This option > allows the platform HAL to select the specific > microcontroller fitted." > } >=20 > That is inside "ecoscvs\ecos\packages\hal\cortexm\stm32\var\current\cdl", > because with my EVB for example=20 > the uP is a STM32F107VC. With this I can't set the right uP as default for > the template. > I'm right? I think the correct is to put the code inside > "ecoscvs\ecos\packages\hal\cortexm\stm32\stm3210e_eval\current\cdl" >=20 > Can someone modify this so I can update my CVS and work with the right co= de? >=20 > Best regards Gisn. >=20 > PS:=20 > 1 - When I finish my piece of port, that is at the beginning and I'm > learning eCos who can upload? > 2 - For every suggest Is this the right place? > 3 - I have to post the full port or can post pieces of code as they are > ready? >=20 >=20