So what's the deciding factor? Should this be in 'stm32' directory
because most peripherals have compatibility? Or a different directory
because RCC is different?
The deciding factor should be maintainability.
I have not heard any reason why the support should not go under stm32/.
Mu only concern is for the long lists of MCU dependencies that you see
in the the code like:
stm32_adc.c:244:#if defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F10XX)
stm32_adc.c:264:#elif defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F30XX) ||
defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F33XX)
stm32_adc.c:288:#elif defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F20XX) ||
defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F37XX) || \
stm32_adc.c:289: defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F4XXX)
stm32_adc.c:290:# if defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F37XX)
stm32_adc.c:314:#elif defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32L15XX)
stm32_adc.c:361:#if defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F10XX)
stm32_adc.c:363:#elif defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F20XX) ||
defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F30XX) || \
stm32_adc.c:364: defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F33XX) ||
defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32F4XXX)
stm32_adc.c:366:#elif defined(CONFIG_STM32_STM32L15XX)
One thing you can do to keep prevent the runaway dependencies on
specific chips is to parameterized the features. For example, if
STM32abc, STM32def, and STM32ghi and have FEATURE_X, then instead of
conditioning the implementation of FEATURE_X on all of those MCUs, you
could minimize the chaos by defining a single CONFIG_STM32_FEATURE_X
Then conditioning the implementation of FEATURE_X on only that one
parameter.
Also, use separater files when the logic is vastly different. Look, for
example, at how many stm32*_rcc.c files there are in stm32/. The
correct one is selected in the Make.defs.
Greg
PS: I see that you are a VP now!
