A lot of it is waiting in pull requests, and largely just needs time to review and merge. The bulk of the peripherals are the same, and just need to be added to the makefiles. Given that there have been pull requests from multiple sources for f7, I think it's as used as anything else, but there's ~zero usage data in general.
Right this instant, yes, it's less complete than f4 though. Sincerely, Karl P Chuck Guzis via libopencm3-devel <libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > I've been doing some projects on the STM32F4 using both SPL and > Libopencm3 suites. I'm currently working on migrating my F4 > projects to STM32F7 platforms. > > My initial attempt was somewhat disappointing. For example, I > note that rtc (.h and library routines) are completely absent. > Were it for just this one aspect, I'd have no problem adapting > the F4 versions to F7. However, the obvious lack has me > wondering if anyone is using libopencm3 for F7 development--and > particularly the reliability of the F7 code base. > > Given that STM has stated that it has no plans to extend the > old SPL to F7 devices, that pretty much leaves CubeMX as the > only open-source development library. (HAL on F7 would be a > mess to maintain). > > Is my thinking correct--or am I overlooking something? > > Thanks for any suggestions/input. > > Chuck > Sydex, Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > libopencm3-devel mailing list > libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
OpenPGP-digital-signature.html
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
_______________________________________________ libopencm3-devel mailing list libopencm3-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libopencm3-devel
