Hi Maarten, On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:48 AM Maarten Zanders <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have a couple of old devboards that I want to use in an experiment - > Olimexino-STM32 - based on STM32F103RB. They are supported in NuttX > but no documentation - so I wrote an extensive description. > Unfortunately, none of the provided defconfigs are actually working, > at each boot you're greeted with a backtrace. The (non-default) stack > sizes are too small but, when increasing those, other things seem to > be missing as well. Seems like NuttX evolved but nobody has been using > these boards since a long time. There is also a lot of clutter in > these defconfigs. > > This board seems similar to stm32f103-minimum board (aka Blue-Pill). I suggest you test this board first, because normally everything is working fine there. So I started from scratch for a minimal NSH. Went further and tried to > get USB composite up and running but after a day of fiddling I have to > conclude that it's too much to ask from this chip with 20kB of RAM - > at least without heavy tuning. As I don't need it myself, I won't be > pursuing this any further. > > No, 20KB RAM is fine to get USB Devices (USB CDC/ACM for usbnsh) working. > Now I'm wondering what's the best way to move forward? Is it OK to > just delete code & configs that are not working anymore? I would then > provide a clean base to start derived work from (but only a subset of > defconfigs). > Or just mark whatever is there as "not functional" and move on? > > The thumb rule of Greg Nutt was to fix what is broken and try to avoid NuttX becoming too big that stops working on existing boards. Of course, sometimes an "animal" could come to extinction, like what happened to 8051 port. About the Documentation, we need to update all the boards, adding board pictures, etc. BR, Alan
