You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mynewt.apache.org by Andrei Emeltchenko <an...@gmail.com> on 2016/04/18 09:55:49 UTC
Mynewt for arduino_101 board
Hi,
I am working on arduino_101 development board.
https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101
It has nrf51 BLE chip, Basically the configuration is the same as for
the nrf51dk-16kbram with the only difference:
--- a/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
+++ b/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
static const struct nrf51_uart_cfg uart_cfg = {
.suc_pin_tx = 9,
.suc_pin_rx = 11,
- .suc_pin_rts = 8,
+ .suc_pin_rts = 12,
.suc_pin_cts = 10
};
What is the best way of keeping the change? Making special BSP would be
too expensive for this one line change.
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
Re: Mynewt for arduino_101 board
Posted by Vipul Rahane <vi...@runtime.io>.
+1 for new BSP as opposed to #ifdef.
Regards,
Vipul Rahane
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:04 PM, paul@wrada.com wrote:
>
> I concur with what Chris is saying. This is how we do it for arduino, but
> its not ideal in my opinion.
>
> It worked OK for arduino zero versus Zero Pro, but for your case we are
> talking about two very different products (arduino and NRF eval board).
>
> I wish I had a good answer. One possibility is to pull stuff that is
> common across all NRF51 boards into a separate component.
>
>
>
> On 4/18/16, 1:02 PM, "Christopher Collins" <cc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am working on arduino_101 development board.
>>> https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101
>>>
>>> It has nrf51 BLE chip, Basically the configuration is the same as for
>>> the nrf51dk-16kbram with the only difference:
>>>
>>> --- a/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
>>> +++ b/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
>>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>>> static const struct nrf51_uart_cfg uart_cfg = {
>>> .suc_pin_tx = 9,
>>> .suc_pin_rx = 11,
>>> - .suc_pin_rts = 8,
>>> + .suc_pin_rts = 12,
>>> .suc_pin_cts = 10
>>> };
>>>
>>>
>>> What is the best way of keeping the change? Making special BSP would be
>>> too expensive for this one line change.
>>
>> This is indeed an annoying situation. There is a nearly identical
>> dilemma with the Arduino Zero and the Arduino Zero Pro; the only
>> difference among these two boards is a single pin.
>>
>> The solution for the Arduino Zero is to use a single BSP, but to select
>> the proper pin at compile time via an #ifdef:
>>
>> #ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO_PRO
>> ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (8),
>> ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (14),
>> #endif
>>
>> #ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO
>> ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (14),
>> ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (8),
>> #endif
>>
>> The appropriate preprocessor symbol is defined by the use of a target
>> feature, as described in the arduino zero tutorial:
>> http://mynewt.apache.org/os/tutorials/arduino_zero/
>>
>> That said, I am not sure this is the right approach. I will certainly
>> let others weight in, but my feeling is that it is better to just bite
>> the bullet and create a new BSP. Both solutions pose maintenance
>> headaches, but I think separate BSPs is simpler and more maintainable.
>> An additional benefit of separate BSPs is that it simplifies target
>> creation for the application developer (just specify BSP, rather than
>> BSP plus feature).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris
>
Re: Mynewt for arduino_101 board
Posted by "paul@wrada.com" <pa...@wrada.com>.
I concur with what Chris is saying. This is how we do it for arduino, but
its not ideal in my opinion.
It worked OK for arduino zero versus Zero Pro, but for your case we are
talking about two very different products (arduino and NRF eval board).
I wish I had a good answer. One possibility is to pull stuff that is
common across all NRF51 boards into a separate component.
On 4/18/16, 1:02 PM, "Christopher Collins" <cc...@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi Andre,
>
>On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am working on arduino_101 development board.
>> https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101
>>
>> It has nrf51 BLE chip, Basically the configuration is the same as for
>> the nrf51dk-16kbram with the only difference:
>>
>> --- a/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
>> +++ b/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
>> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>> static const struct nrf51_uart_cfg uart_cfg = {
>> .suc_pin_tx = 9,
>> .suc_pin_rx = 11,
>> - .suc_pin_rts = 8,
>> + .suc_pin_rts = 12,
>> .suc_pin_cts = 10
>> };
>>
>>
>> What is the best way of keeping the change? Making special BSP would be
>> too expensive for this one line change.
>
>This is indeed an annoying situation. There is a nearly identical
>dilemma with the Arduino Zero and the Arduino Zero Pro; the only
>difference among these two boards is a single pin.
>
>The solution for the Arduino Zero is to use a single BSP, but to select
>the proper pin at compile time via an #ifdef:
>
> #ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO_PRO
> ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (8),
> ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (14),
> #endif
>
> #ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO
> ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (14),
> ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (8),
> #endif
>
>The appropriate preprocessor symbol is defined by the use of a target
>feature, as described in the arduino zero tutorial:
>http://mynewt.apache.org/os/tutorials/arduino_zero/
>
>That said, I am not sure this is the right approach. I will certainly
>let others weight in, but my feeling is that it is better to just bite
>the bullet and create a new BSP. Both solutions pose maintenance
>headaches, but I think separate BSPs is simpler and more maintainable.
>An additional benefit of separate BSPs is that it simplifies target
>creation for the application developer (just specify BSP, rather than
>BSP plus feature).
>
>Thanks,
>Chris
Re: Mynewt for arduino_101 board
Posted by Christopher Collins <cc...@apache.org>.
Hi Andre,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:55:49AM +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on arduino_101 development board.
> https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoard101
>
> It has nrf51 BLE chip, Basically the configuration is the same as for
> the nrf51dk-16kbram with the only difference:
>
> --- a/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
> +++ b/hw/bsp/nrf51dk-16kbram/src/hal_bsp.c
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
> static const struct nrf51_uart_cfg uart_cfg = {
> .suc_pin_tx = 9,
> .suc_pin_rx = 11,
> - .suc_pin_rts = 8,
> + .suc_pin_rts = 12,
> .suc_pin_cts = 10
> };
>
>
> What is the best way of keeping the change? Making special BSP would be
> too expensive for this one line change.
This is indeed an annoying situation. There is a nearly identical
dilemma with the Arduino Zero and the Arduino Zero Pro; the only
difference among these two boards is a single pin.
The solution for the Arduino Zero is to use a single BSP, but to select
the proper pin at compile time via an #ifdef:
#ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO_PRO
ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (8),
ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (14),
#endif
#ifdef ARDUINO_ZERO
ARDUINO_ZERO_D2 = (14),
ARDUINO_ZERO_D4 = (8),
#endif
The appropriate preprocessor symbol is defined by the use of a target
feature, as described in the arduino zero tutorial:
http://mynewt.apache.org/os/tutorials/arduino_zero/
That said, I am not sure this is the right approach. I will certainly
let others weight in, but my feeling is that it is better to just bite
the bullet and create a new BSP. Both solutions pose maintenance
headaches, but I think separate BSPs is simpler and more maintainable.
An additional benefit of separate BSPs is that it simplifies target
creation for the application developer (just specify BSP, rather than
BSP plus feature).
Thanks,
Chris