Merge common files between LPC11XX and LPC11CXX

[omdathetkan]

Remaining differences now are

• device.h (DEVICE_CAN 0/1)
• pwmout_api.c (Assuming that these need to be the same, see below)
• PeripheralNames.h (The same after pwmout_api.c is resolved)
• PinNames.h (Currently not accurate for the 11CXX, see below)
• reserved_pins.h (Should be the same once PinNames is resolved)

Don't really understand the changes in pwmout_api.c? what's the reason that P1_6, P1_7, P1_1, P1_2, P1_3 are removed in LPC11XX? It looks like the differences between to the code are bugfixes that were not ported to the LPC11CXX. The relevant changes are in d0d2df3 (by Toyomasa Watarai), maybe he can comment.

PinNames needs to be updated according to the following differences:

PIN    111X              11C2X
17    PIO1_9/CT16B1_MAT0 --
18    PIO3_4             --
19    PIO2_4             --
20    PIO2_5             --
21    PIO3_5             --
22:   PIO0_6/SCK0        --
23:   PIO0_7/CTS         PIO0_6/SCK0  (Serial clock for SPI0)
24:   PIO2_9             PIO0_7/CTS (Clear To Send input for UART)

The SWDIO/SWCLK definition can be the same for both targets: Would it be an idea to leave them in the peripheral api's but disable them from being used in pinmap.c? Or would you rather pretend that they don't exist at all?

It could be something like:

void pin_function(PinName pin, int function) {
    if (pin == (uint32_t)NC) return;

#if DEVICE_DISABLE_SWD_PINS
    if(pin == P0_10 || pin == 1_3) {
        error("Remapping SWD pins disabled");
    }
#endif
    [...]
}

[toyowata]

what's the reason that P1_6, P1_7, P1_1, P1_2, P1_3 are removed in LPC11XX?

Because CT32B1 (P1_1, P1_2 and P1_3) is used by us_ticker.c for wait and ticker function. Since wait/ticker is commonly used by mbed code and I decided CT32B1 of LPC11XX should only be used for this function, not for PwmOut.

P1_6 and P1_7 are used by UART (USBTX/USBRX) and I think they should not be assigned to other function.

The SWDIO/SWCLK definition can be the same for both targets: Would it be an idea to leave them in the peripheral api's but disable them from being used in pinmap.c? Or would you rather pretend that they don't exist at all?

I prefer an idea by mbednotifications here:

#74 (comment)

The pinname.h should have SWDIO/SWCLK PinName (e.g. P0_10), but peripheral apis use them if DEVICE_SWD_PINS_AVAILABLE is defined (=1 in device.h).

Any comment on this?

[omdathetkan]

Will create a new pull request including pwm_api.c (as well as fixing a typo in the last commit message)

[mbednotifications]

In general I would not like to see pinnames removed or disabled just because
they are used for special functions on mbed hardware. Note that new
platforms are appearing all the time and some may use different conventions.
Some people are also developing their own hardware and use mbed modules for
prototyping. It would be confusing and inconsistent to be forced to use a
different approach for missing pinsnames. In case some additional protection
is desired it may be an option to use a special define flag that either
enables or hides the pins in question.

---

From: mbed-devel@googlegroups.com [mailto:mbed-devel@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Toyomasa Watarai
Sent: zondag 29 september 2013 5:05
To: mbedmicro/mbed
Subject: Re: [mbed] Merge common files between LPC11XX and LPC11CXX (#79)

what's the reason that P1_6, P1_7, P1_1, P1_2, P1_3 are removed in LPC11XX?

Because CT32B1 (P1_1, P1_2 and P1_3) is used by us_ticker.c for wait and
ticker function. Since wait/ticker is commonly used by mbed code and I
decided CT32B1 of LPC11XX should only be used for this function, not for
PwmOut.

P1_6 and P1_7 are used by UART (USBTX/USBRX) and I think they should not be
assigned to other function.

The SWDIO/SWCLK definition can be the same for both targets: Would it be an
idea to leave them in the peripheral api's but disable them from being used
in pinmap.c? Or would you rather pretend that they don't exist at all?

I prefer an idea by mbednotifications here:

#74 (comment)
#74 (comment)

The pinname.h should have SWDIO/SWCLK PinName (e.g. P0_10), but peripheral
apis use them if DEVICE_SWD_PINS_AVAILABLE is defined (=1 in device.h).

Any comment on this?

Reply to this email directly or view it
#79 (comment) on
GitHub.
<https://github.com/notifications/beacon/Je4ybK6to-jqRROsOi1IeP_kTnoxq2yv6Vz
ZTkxTN9oWfY3CJEpnXpR8PPTXaIZe.gif>

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mbed-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to mbed-devel+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[omdathetkan]

Note that the LPC11C24 has a few pins missing since they are taken up by the can tranceiver that's built into the chip.

I could see that disabling the SWD pins could make sense to prevent bricking, but it would be nice if that could be changed with a simple option in device.h, maybe the same for the serial pins.

[jasstrong]

A warning at compile time would be nice.