-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support for Zephyr framework #34
Comments
Interesting, at the time I looked at this, Zephyr didn't support anything Gigadevice related, but now it seems to have better support for some boards: See "gd32" in https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/boards/arm. Which boards / chips exactly would like to see supported? |
Basically I'm just treating the mcu like a STM32 from Zephyr's viewpoint. e.g. with custom board and soc trees which refer to STM since the support is already there; but having GD32 platform directly supporting Zephyr would make the whole a bit simpler. The debugger and uploader are not dependent on explicit Zephyr support, PIO support would make it possible out of the box. |
And what mapping from GD32 to STM32 are you using there? |
GD32F330C8 -> STM32F301C8 for now. subject to change. |
Hm, looking at the memory map for GD32F303xx page 15 and STM32F103C8 page 51, they are different in e.g. already GPIOA peripheral address. But RCC, UART, I2C and TIM are a match. Did you test GPIO control with the Zephyr APIs and it failed to work? What Zephyr board config would the STM32F301C8 be? Because I don't see that in the aforementioned boards, and https://github.com/platformio/platform-ststm32/tree/develop/boards doesn't even list the F301C8, either as a |
I just copied STM32F302 soc config and modified it. Not sure if it is going to work. But what I'm stuck on at the moment is trying to get OpenOCD to work:
If this starts working I might switch to something like STM32F103 for the mapping. Any ideas? |
I treat my GD32F303CC with the |
Yes, Readout-protection was the case. Thank you. Based on what you said and other sources, seems like it's better to treat it like a F103 instead. I'd probably go with that. |
upstream
ststm32
platform supports this - seems like adding the build script is possible?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: