September 2016 - xpcc-dev - lists.rwth-aachen.de

Library builder for xpcc platform module
by Fabian Greif 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

Hi, For a prof of concept I've added an initial repository file [1] and some module files [2] for the xpcc drivers. Now you can do all the things you always wanted [3] by using lbuild: Display all the available targets: $ ../library-builder/scripts/lbuild-discover -r"source/repo.lb" --discover=repository:options modm-platform:target = [at90can128, ... long list of all targets ..., stm32f779ni] Display all available modules for a specific target: $ ../library-builder/scripts/lbuild-discover -r"source/repo.lb" --discover=modules -D":target=stm32f303k6" modm-platform:adc modm-platform:can modm-platform:clock modm-platform:core modm-platform:dma modm-platform:gpio modm-platform:i2c modm-platform:id modm-platform:spi modm-platform:spi_uart modm-platform:timer modm-platform:uart Get the available options for those modules together with their current value and possible values: $ ../library-builder/scripts/lbuild-discover -r"source/repo.lb" --discover=module:options -D":target=stm32f303k6" modm-platform:core:allocator = newlib [block_allocator, newlib, tlsf] modm-platform:core:enable_gpio = True [True, False] modm-platform:core:main_stack_size = 3040 [512 ... 8192] modm-platform:core:vector_table_in_ram = False [True, False] To check it out yourself you need the following repositories cloned in the same folder: https://github.com/dergraaf/modm-platform https://github.com/dergraaf/library-builder https://github.com/dergraaf/xpcc in branch feature/lbuild Then you can run: $ cd modm-platform $ make discover Building doesn't work yet because the mapping between the device file content and substitutions for the jinja2 templates is not exactly the same as before. Therefore the next step is to clean up that mapping and remove the special cases which are at the moment hard-coded in the xpcc python build tools. E.g. '<core>cortex-m4f</core>' gets mapped to 'properties["core"][0]["value"]' which is quite cumbersome [4]. The correct thing would be something like 'properties["core"]'. But that leads to problems if there would be a second 'core' tag. Like there is for the 'define' tags. Any idea on how to proceed with that? Cheers, Fabian Btw. should I create a pull request for the discussions about the code? Unfortunately the interesting parts are spread over the three repository, therefore it would only work for the driver files. [1] https://github.com/dergraaf/modm-platform/blob/master/source/repo.lb [2] https://github.com/dergraaf/xpcc/commit/309655a5e1e960f6af9ac43dfc50bbd79ab… [3] DISCLAIMER: May not be all the things you always wanted. [4] https://github.com/dergraaf/xpcc/commit/309655a5e1e960f6af9ac43dfc50bbd79ab…

1 1

Schema for XML device files
by Fabian Greif 07 Sep '16

07 Sep '16

Hi, in an effort to make xpcc build system independent I had a look at the platform generation and therefore the XML device files. To understand how they are set up I wrote a schema against all of them can be validated: https://github.com/dergraaf/modm-platform/blob/master/tools/device/device/r… The schema could be refined a bit more (not only string type for attributes) but should be good starting point. Is there a documentation available what the different attributes mean? Especially for the attributes marked as optional the use differs quite a lot between the different architectures. Cheers, Fabian

2 9

We've got a porting guide
by Niklas Hauser 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

Hi there, I've added a guide for porting devices to a new platform: https://github.com/roboterclubaachen/xpcc/blob/develop/PORTING.md You can leave a comment on the guide on the Pull Request: https://github.com/roboterclubaachen/xpcc/pull/179 Happy porting! Niklas PS: This doubles as a test email to check if I've setup our new mail archive correctly ;-P

1 0

New platform: Atmel SAM4L?
by Shane Leonard 03 Sep '16

03 Sep '16

Hi all, I'm a new subscriber--my name is Shane Leonard, and I'm an electrical engineering master's student specializing in embedded systems at Stanford. I came across XPCC in a personal quest to come up with a creative hardware register access scheme, and your blog post on the subject was by far the best I could find :) I'm currently rolling a basic platform for a development board I made for the ATSAM4L, and as it turns out, I find myself looking at your codebase quite a lot for inspiration. I know the AVR and STM platforms are fairly removed from the Atmel SAM family, but I wanted to gauge your opinions on whether it could be a good idea to fork XPCC and start scratching together a framework for SAM or more specifically SAM4L. I'll likely end up doing it for my own purposes either way, but I would probably write more production-quality code from the start if I suspected a chance for this to make it into the main codebase. Thanks, and keep up the awesome work! Shane

2 1