[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] STM32F100: support different density lines
From: |
Alexandre IOOSS |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] STM32F100: support different density lines |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:23:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 |
On 6/20/23 00:18, Lucas Villa Real wrote:
This patch adds support for the emulation of different density lines
(low, medium, and high). A new class property stm32f100-soc.density=
has been introduced to allow users to state the desired configuration.
That property is recognized by a new machine, stm32f1-generic. The SOC
is configured according to the following:
density=low 32 KB FLASH, 2 SPIs
density=medium 128 KB FLASH, 2 SPIs
density=high 512 KB FLASH, 3 SPIs
With this code change we should be able to introduce richer features
to STM32F100, such as support for FSMC (so that a machine with more
RAM capacity can be properly emulated). FSMC is supported on high
density line devices only.
Thanks a lot for the patches!
STM32 families look very similar to each other, it makes great sense to
take a generic approach rather than bloating QEMU with many machines.
You patch proposes to create a "stm32f1-generic" machine. I believe we
should rather name this machine "stm32f100-generic":
- STM32F101 has a XL-density line, STM32F100 does not have a
XL-density line.
- STM32F100 high density line does not have the same maximum SRAM
size, timers, USART numbers, clock frequencies and CEC peripherals as
the STM32F101 high density line.
Regarding the stm32vldiscovery machine, I am not against deprecating it
if we warn users to use stm32f100-generic with density=medium. This
makes sense as the development board does not add anything more than
just some buttons and LED.
Maybe "stm32vldiscovery" could become an alias for stm32f100-generic
machine ?
@Alistair: Do you have an opinion on aliasing the old machine? Is this
something common in QEMU?
In the long run, we should maybe rename "stm32f100-soc.c" to
"stm32f1-soc.c" and add another class property to choose the sub-family.
This would highly reduce potential code duplication.
STM32F1 machines could take this structure:
- stm32f100-generic machine
- stm32f1-soc.family=f100 stm32f1-soc.density=low
- stm32f1-soc.family=f100 stm32f1-soc.density=medium
(alias stm32vldiscovery)
- stm32f1-soc.family=f100 stm32f1-soc.density=high
- stm32f101-generic machine
- stm32f1-soc.family=f101 stm32f1-soc.density=low
- stm32f1-soc.family=f101 stm32f1-soc.density=medium
- stm32f1-soc.family=f101 stm32f1-soc.density=high
- stm32f1-soc.family=f101 stm32f1-soc.density=xl
- stm32f102-generic machine
- stm32f1-soc.family=f102 stm32f1-soc.density=low
- stm32f1-soc.family=f102 stm32f1-soc.density=medium
- stm32f103-generic machine
- stm32f1-soc.family=f103 stm32f1-soc.density=low
- stm32f1-soc.family=f103 stm32f1-soc.density=medium
(alias stm32-nucleo-f103rb)
- stm32f1-soc.family=f103 stm32f1-soc.density=high
- stm32f1-soc.family=f103 stm32f1-soc.density=xl
@Alistair: Would such modification make also sense regarding stm32f2 and
stm32f4 families?
Thanks,
--
Alexandre
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature