Karl, thank you for your thoughtful response. Recall that I'm considering a move from SPL to OpenCM3, so when I need an API that selects the clock source for the RTC, I find one for SPL, but not for the F4 OpenCM3. �
I could certainly write my own APIs using CMSIS, but it would seem that would contradict the idea of using a standard library.� I could also contribute the missing functions to the repository, but since my work is somewhat time-limited (one-off applications that will never see a production version), I'd have no idea when or if they'd make it into the standard library. I haven't gotten to more complex issues, such as creating composite USB devices (it's difficult enough using SPL).� With OpenCM3, I see a mountain to climb and I can't really justify the effort at this time. Again, thanks for the response. Best wishes for the season, Chuck On 12/21/2017 01:54 AM, Karl Palsson wrote: > > F4 is as good as f1 really, better in some ways. The RTC peripheral > is completely different in everything but the F1, and just needs > someone using it to contribute to it. All of the modules are only as > good as their users, I wouldn't really say F4 is "worse" than F1, or > somehow incomplete. > > There's certainly more _examples_ floating around for F1, but that's > a different matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ libopencm3-devel mailing list libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
