From: Tomas Frydrych <tf+lists.ecos@r-finger.com>
To: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Adding Kinetis boards
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EEA50A3.8030404@r-finger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EEA3697.4090109@siva.com.mk>
Hi Ilija,
On 15/12/11 18:04, Ilija Kocho wrote:
> It may be just enough to add a new target entry in ecos.db.
> I am not familiar with Kwikstik I only know that it is based on same
> chip as TWR-K40. Can you please point the differences between boards
> with respect to: HAL, devices, etc.
I think HAL-wise the Kwikstik board is the same as the twr-40x256, it
just exposes different features of the MCU through the attached devices,
which include a microphone, a buzzer, an audio output, rechargeable
battery (with usb charging), a dot-matrix LCD.
The Kwistik is attractive because of its low cost (~$30), and even comes
with an on board Segger J-Link chip! Seems like an affordable base for
all kinds of hobby projects.
I think just having an additional target might work with all the
differences handled in device implementation, and all the HAL
functionality subsumed under the twr-k40x256, e.g., in the case of the LCD.
Tomas
>
> Ilija
>
> On 15.12.2011 17:57, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking at adding the Kwikstik to the current Kinetis boards, and I
>> am wondering what would be the best way to approach this.
>>
>> Currently there are two Kinetis boards, the TWR-K40X256 and TWR-K60N512,
>> with the directory structure something like this:
>>
>> kinetis/var/... - Generic Kinetis code
>> kinetis/twr_k40x256 - K40 and twr-k40 code
>> kinetis/twr_k60x256 - K60 and twr-k60 code
>>
>> Kwikstik is based on the same MCU as the twr-k40x256, so it needs the
>> same MCU-specific code as the twr-k40x256 board, which I think is all,
>> or nearly all of the code currently under the twr_k40x256 directory.
>>
>> I initially thought I'd just clone twr_k40x256 into a new kwikstik
>> directory, but that's probably not the best approach for
>> maintainability. I am thinking it might be better to split out the
>> generic K40 code so it can be shared between distinct boards, but I am
>> not sure where to split this to: should there be a separate k40x256
>> subdirectory and a corresponding package that the twr_k40x256 requires?
>> Or is there a better way of approaching this altogether?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance,
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-15 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-15 16:57 Tomas Frydrych
2011-12-15 18:04 ` Ilija Kocho
2011-12-15 19:55 ` Tomas Frydrych [this message]
2011-12-16 8:39 ` Ilija Kocho
2011-12-19 21:33 ` Tomas Frydrych
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EEA50A3.8030404@r-finger.com \
--to=tf+lists.ecos@r-finger.com \
--cc=ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).