[riot-devel] Working on port to SODAQ Autonomo (SAMD21)
peter.kietzmann at haw-hamburg.de
Thu Jun 16 11:36:21 CEST 2016
Am 15.06.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Kees Bakker:
> On 15-06-16 09:32, Peter Kietzmann wrote:
>> Hi Kees,
>> if you volunteer you could start with moving code to samd21_common and
>> open PR(s) for that :-).
> Well, OK. I'll give it a try.
>> Seems like a step in the right direction. I personally won't find time
>> for that unfortunately. On our side we could test your PR(s) with the
>> samr21-xpro board and AFAIK Kaspar has a saml21-xpro board.
> Do you have a "build farm" of some sorts? Or do you run tests manually?
We have static build tests (tool named "Murdock") which can be enabled
by maintainers in a PR. The rest is done manually with review and local
>> Regarding the UART issue, could you give some more insights about the
>> pad you want to add to uart_conf_t? I just gave it a quick look into
>> the reference manual
>> but on the first sight I didn't see a difference to
> My UART changes have nothing to do with samd21 versus samr21. It's about
> selecting a
> pin for RX, TX.
> For example, on Autonomo use pin PA10 for TX. PA10 is PAD2 of SERCOM0,
> with MUX C.
> The samr21_xpro has PA4 as TX, PA4 is PAD0 of SERCOM0 (ALT) with MUX D.
Ok I got it. Agree that it makes sense to expand the configuration type.
> But as I'm probably biased, do others feel that the folder scheme should
> more reflect a vendor's scheme?
I'd like to have the most generic abstraction (e.g. samd21, saml21 and
probably samr21) and better no separate folders for each CPU variant.
However, I can't estimate the feasibility of that in order to allow
support for all these variants. Let's move this discussion to your PR.
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences
Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group
Berliner Tor 7, 20099 Hamburg, Germany
More information about the devel