NRF52: fix config

[0xc0170]

Description

remove lib config and use target configuration instead. To avoid duplication of symbols, etc.

Fixes #10655

It could be simplified but I noticed not all targets from NRF52 contain overrides neither have one common parent (two MCU), therefore I only moved the config already there to the target config. No other change.

Pull request type

[X] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[ ] Test update
[ ] Breaking change

Reviewers

@SeppoTakalo @evedon

Release Notes

[0xc0170]

There are few other lib json files in targets folder. These are at least targets config but there is silabs rail library included in targets there and contain mbed_lib.json file. It makes sense to have 3rd party driver there and contain configuration (common + target overrides) - this shall not be moved to targets.json file (or if yes, how to as its MCU_ like these are). Not much relevant here just looking at other .json files in targets folder.

This should be good as it is. I'll verify I moved all data correctly, will report back.

@ARMmbed/mbed-os-tools need your opinion here.

[0xc0170]

All checked, one to one copy. I found one mistake that I fixed.

[evedon]

Checked manually.

[0xc0170]

I am testing it with blinky baremetal , fails for me with very strange python error - I suspect there is duplication of symbols somewhere.

mbed compile -m NRF52840_DK -t ARM ends with:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "F:\Code\mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal\mbed-os\tools\make.py", line 78, in wrapped_build_project
    *args, **kwargs
  File "F:\Code\mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal\mbed-os\tools\build_api.py", line 595, in build_project
    objects = toolchain.compile_sources(resources, sorted(resources.get_file_paths(FileType.INC_DIR)))
  File "F:\Code\mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal\mbed-os\tools\toolchains\mbed_toolchain.py", line 414, in compile_sources
    return self._compile_sources(resources, inc_dirs=inc_dirs)
  File "F:\Code\mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal\mbed-os\tools\toolchains\mbed_toolchain.py", line 491, in _compile_sources
    return self.compile_queue(queue, objects)
  File "F:\Code\mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal\mbed-os\tools\toolchains\mbed_toolchain.py", line 559, in compile_queue

    if p._taskqueue.queue:
AttributeError: '_queue.SimpleQueue' object has no attribute 'queue'
[mbed-22440] ERROR: "c:\programs\python37-32\python.exe" returned error.

[0xc0170]

Can anyone test this? It looks like I have some env issue. I tried python2 and 3 , same error ,even without this fix, just using master and requires "nordic" workaround. K64F for instance builds, so its only NRF52840_DK releated on my machine :/

[0xc0170]

CI started

[SeppoTakalo]

Test

Build agains mbed OS master

---
Building project mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal (NRF52840_DK, GCC_ARM)
Scan: mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal
No Linker Script found

Build against pull/11418

[Building project mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal (NRF52840_DK, GCC_ARM)
Scan: mbed-os-example-blinky-baremetal
Compile [ 18.3%]: crypto_device_platform.c
[Fatal Error] crypto_device_platform.c@21,26: platform_alt.h: No such file or directory
[ERROR] '_queue.SimpleQueue' object has no attribute 'queue'

Now it looks like FEATURE_CRYPTOCELL310/TARGET_MCU_NRF52840/crypto_device_platform.c is not compatible with bare-metal.

:(

[0xc0170]

@SeppoTakalo you are receiving the same error as me above. Is this an issue on master?

[Fatal Error] crypto_device_platform.c@21,26: platform_alt.h: No such file or directory

@Patater Can you review this failure? You should be able to reproduce using this PR with latest master and command #11418 (comment)

[0xc0170]

From the readme:

baremetal | Mbed OS 5
| Mbed TLS | Not available | Available |

tls is not available thus cryptocell should not be neither.

[Patater]

As a quick solution, it's probably acceptable to remove CRYPTOCELL310 from the target, requiring users to opt-in to hardware acceleration on that platform. This would need to be documented in known issues.

The best solution would be to remove CRYPTOCELL310 only for baremetal builds, if that's possible. You don't need CRYPTOCELL310 is you don't have TLS or Crypto.

[mbed-ci]

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

[SeppoTakalo]

After discussing the matter in Slack, we are proposing that this is acceptable solution:

• Merge this PR as is
• Document as know issue that NRF52 does not build in Baremetal configuration, until application removes FEATURE_CRYPTOCELL310

This is minimal harm for user, as it requires changes only for baremetal builds and does not affect normal builds.

[0xc0170]

We shall create an issue for this where we can continue discussion about features vs baremetal as I believe this come down to it (would need a review from tools if our understanding is correct). I can create an issue tomorrow.

[0xc0170]

@adbridge Lets make sure the issue identified here is captured in the known issues:

NRF52 targets do not build for baremetal. Workaround: remove CRYPTOCELL310 feature via target config.