Skip to content

STM32F429/STM32F439 alignment #8916

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 20, 2018
Merged

STM32F429/STM32F439 alignment #8916

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 20, 2018

Conversation

jeromecoutant
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

NUCLEO_F429ZI and NUCLEO_F439ZI boards should have the same features, except HW crypto.
Both targets can be now used in Pelion repo for ex.

  • NUCLEO_F429ZI : old uvisor updates removed as this feature is now deprecated

  • NUCLEO_F439ZI : bootloader feature is added

@adustm

Pull request type

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

@0xc0170 0xc0170 requested a review from a team November 30, 2018 10:45
@adustm
Copy link
Member

adustm commented Dec 4, 2018

Hello,
Question about TARGET_NUCLEO_F439ZI/mbed-bootloader-nucleo_f439zi-block_device-sotp-v3_4_0.bin

I think this file is currently a strict copy from the file of NUCLEO_F429ZI.

Dear arm team, both F429ZI and 439ZI only differ by the presence/absence of HW crypto on the device.
Do you know if the content of the binary file should be re-compiled for hw crypto acceleration or not ?
If so, who can do that and how ?

Kind regards

@adustm
Copy link
Member

adustm commented Dec 4, 2018

The rest of the code is fine for me. Thanks @jeromecoutant for the post-uvisor-removal cleanup ;)

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Dec 4, 2018

Dear arm team, both F429ZI and 439ZI only differ by the presence/absence of HW crypto on the device.
Do you know if the content of the binary file should be re-compiled for hw crypto acceleration or not ?
If so, who can do that and how ?

@brianesquilona

@cmonr
Copy link
Contributor

cmonr commented Dec 10, 2018

@c1728p9 @brianesquilona Holding until one of y'all also give the OK.

@cmonr
Copy link
Contributor

cmonr commented Dec 14, 2018

@SenRamakri @LiyouZhou Would y'all happen to know more?

@LiyouZhou
Copy link
Contributor

@cmonr the only crypto the bootloader use is a hashing function sha256, if there is a hardware accelerated sha256 then it would certainly make booting a lot faster.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Dec 18, 2018

@cmonr the only crypto the bootloader use is a hashing function sha256, if there is a hardware accelerated sha256 then it would certainly make booting a lot faster.

OK so not a blocker for this PR. It can be sent via a new pull request once this one lands? We would like to proceed with this pull request.

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Dec 20, 2018

CI started

If so, who can do that and how ?

I'll try to find out who can update the bootloader after this one lands

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Dec 20, 2018

Test run: SUCCESS

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

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants