I'm not entirely following the problem, but it sounds like you could decouple your arch-independent driver logic in an upper-half and then have a lower-half per-arch, using board-common drivers (ie. boards/stm32/drivers). The lower-half would then be able to use stm32 internal headers. In this scenario, you don't need to replicate things per-board, only per-arch (which I guess is the minimum you could do if you're using stm32 specific pin handling).
Best, Matias On Fri, Feb 5, 2021, at 23:13, Grr wrote: > > Is this helpful? > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NUTTX/Including+Files+in+board.h > > > Maybe but I think it would obscure things. I explain: > > Per my idea, exporting available GPIOs is done from board.h like this: > > #ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_1 > # if defined(CONFIG_GPIO_1_OUT) > # define GPIO_1_TYPE GPIO_OUTPUT_PIN > # elif defined(CONFIG_GPIO_1_IN) > # define GPIO_1_TYPE GPIO_INPUT_PIN > # else /* CONFIG_GPIO_1_IRQ */ > # define GPIO_1_TYPE GPIO_INTERRUPT_PIN > # endif > # define GPIO_1_PIN 2 > # define GPIO_1_PORT 5 > # define GPIO_1_ADDR STM32_GPIOE_BASE > #endif /* CONFIG_GPIO_1 */ > > That means I should be able to access > arch/arm/src/stm32/hardware/stm32f40xxx_memorymap.h from board.h, which is > no dangerous at all, except that it's not easy > > Why not follow that page advice and do it from the C file? Because next C > file is a system-wide file in drivers/ that fills system-wide GPIO struct > with board information. Otherwise, I'd have to make a board function that > fills system-wide struct and replicate that for every board thus recreating > the problem I want to fix. > > If STM32 header files were in include/, there would be no problem, so I'm > almost convinced that will be the best solution > > > > > > On 2/5/2021 7:34 PM, Brennan Ashton wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021, 4:40 PM Grr <gebbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> You cannot include arch specific headers in board.h like that! That > > will > > >>> break a lot of things. > > >>> > > >> board.h is arch specific > > > > > >> It absolutely is not including arch headers will break things. > > > board.h: > > > > > https://www.github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/tree/master/boards%2Farm%2Fstm32%2Fstm32f4discovery%2Finclude%2Fboard.h > > > > > > And the arch specific board configuration: > > > > > https://www.github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/tree/master/boards%2Farm%2Fstm32%2Fstm32f4discovery%2Fsrc%2Fstm32f4discovery.h > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> The expectation is that you pass the interfaces that you need into the > > >>> drivers. If you have a particular "module" which contains multiple > > >> devices > > >>> that you want to support across different boards then just create a > > thin > > >>> driver that wraps everything else inside of it. Bypassing things like > > the > > >>> existing SPI CS or interrupt infrastructure is asking for trouble. > > >>> > > >> Combining my example (I forgot to mention ESP32) with that technique > > means > > >> creating at least 10 thin > > >> > > > You should not need to do that. Here is an example of how GPIO is > > normally > > > attached. Note this be done in per arch common code but it is arch > > specific. > > > > > > > > https://www.github.com/apache/incubator-nuttx/tree/master/boards%2Farm%2Fstm32%2Fstm32f4discovery%2Fsrc%2Fstm32_gs2200m.c > > > > > > You could also create a shim for the driver to talk to the generic GPIO > > > interface as we suggested earlier, but I'm not convinced that we would > > gain > > > much with that. > > > > > > > > >>> For example I have a breakout module with a touchscreen, keyboard, and > > SD > > >>> card. This requires the I2C bus, SPI bus, and GPIO for card detection > > and > > >>> chip select. I just define a common name for the IO on the device and > > >> then > > >>> map that in board.h and then add the callbacks for the GPIO interrupt > > and > > >>> the chip select. This in total is about 50 lines of actual board code > > >> and > > >>> that is if you are not already using things like the SPI chip select. > > >>> > > >> My idea goes like this: > > >> > > >> 1-Board exports available GPIOs (among other things) > > >> 2-Menuconfig offer GPIOs to user for selection. Selected ones become > > >> available to drivers > > >> 3-User configures needed drivers with selected GPIOs, also in Menuconfig > > >> 4-Compiles > > >> 5-If developing, user can test with incorporated char driver that > > allows to > > >> turn on and off selected GPIOs from a system testing utility > > > > > > To do this you would use the ioexpander/GPIO interface that was > > mentioned. > > > It can provide that functionality but you would still have to write lower > > > half shims for the drivers that would consume GPIO this way. > > > > > > > > >>> --Brennan > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021, 3:08 PM Grr <gebbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>> Yes, we need an additional struct for port number: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > https://github.com/FishsemiCode/nuttx/blob/song-u1/include/nuttx/lcd/ili9486_lcd.h#L49-L57 > > >>>>> struct lcd_ili9486_config_s > > >>>>> { > > >>>>> uint8_t power_gpio; > > >>>>> uint8_t rst_gpio; > > >>>>> uint8_t spi_cs_num; > > >>>>> uint8_t spi_rs_gpio; > > >>>>> uint32_t spi_freq; > > >>>>> uint8_t spi_nbits; > > >>>>> }; > > >>>>> But, we can reuse ioexpander_dev_s or gpio_dev_s, what's benefit to > > >>> add a > > >>>>> new gpioops_s? > > >>>>> > > >>>> I mean GPIO port, not SPÎ port. I mentioned SPI because GPIOs are > > >> needed > > >>> as > > >>>> chip selects, resets and interrupt inputs for SPI devices > > >>>> > > >>>> But that's only my particular case. Point is to have GPIOs that can be > > >>> used > > >>>> anywhere for anything in a standard way > > >>>> > > >>>> We can add the public interface to arch/archx/include/chipy/chip.h, > > >> like > > >>>>> this: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >> > > https://github.com/FishsemiCode/nuttx/blob/song-u1/arch/arm/include/song/chip.h#L75-L84 > > >>>> > > >>>> My question is how to reach arch/arm/src/stm32/stm32.h from > > >>>> include/arch/board/board.h and sort the hardwired assumption of the > > >> rest > > >>> of > > >>>> headers being local. It seems to me that only reasonable solution is > > >>> moving > > >>>> all header files to include/arch/ but I may be wrong > > >
