-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
Update QSPI porting guide #676
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update QSPI porting guide #676
Conversation
@@ -53,4 +75,8 @@ To enable the QSPI HAL, define `QSPI` in the targets.json file inside `device_ha | |||
|
|||
### Testing | |||
|
|||
To be implemented | |||
The Mbed OS HAL provides a set of conformance tests for the QSPI interface (**Note: QSPI HAL tests require onboard QSPI flash memory**). You can use these tests to validate the correctness of your implementation. To run the QSPI HAL tests, use the following command: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note: QSPI HAL tests require onboard QSPI flash memory
I would say it's still a valid use case to support QSPI even if the board doesn't have on board qspi flash. Could we only run the test requiring onboard flash if the QSPI_FLASH1_xxx are defined? @donatieng @jamesbeyond
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bulislaw Actually QSPI test is run only on targets defining DEVICE_QSPI
.
Currently DEVICE_QSPI
means device with onboard flash, so we don't recognize QSPI capable devices without onboard QSPI flash. I think that it would be good to have something like: DEVICE_QSPI
and DEVICE_QSPI_FLASH
to distinguish them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we only consider devices with onboard flash? Not every SPI device has SPI memory attached to it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not every.
e.g. Nucleo-L496ZG has no QSPI flash but it has QSPI signals routed out on external connector according circuit diagram (waiting for STM confirmation on it in ARMmbed/mbed-os#7817)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would say it's still a valid use case to support QSPI even if the board doesn't have on board qspi flash. Could we only run the test requiring onboard flash if the QSPI_FLASH1_xxx are defined? @donatieng @jamesbeyond
👍 Wording would be "requires QSPI FLASH pins to be defined" ? Targets with onboard flash would have it by default, others would need a config to add them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes LGTM, have a few minor nits with other sections on this page I'll address in a separate PR after this gets in.
@@ -29,6 +29,28 @@ To make sure your platform is ready for the upcoming changes, you need to implem | |||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Query: Can we delete or change the warning in line 7?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code was merged it looks like, should be good to remove that warning,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@AnotherButler warning was removed
b57f104
to
27140aa
Compare
Make minor formatting changes.
Have all comments been addressed? |
Fix phrasing as requested in comments for accuracy.
@donatieng @0xc0170 Is this OK to merge? |
LGTM 😄! |
Align docs with changes introduced in:
ARMmbed/mbed-os#7817
ARMmbed/mbed-os#7783