Skip to content
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

Remove ITM from NRF52_DK and DELTA_DFBM_NQ620 targets #9767

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 21, 2019

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@TacoGrandeTX
Copy link
Contributor

TacoGrandeTX commented Feb 19, 2019

The NRF52_DK and DELTA_DFBM_NQ620 have the SWO pin (p0_18) mapped to LED2. This means that on startup LED2 turns on after the ITM is initialized which is confusing. Since most users want LED2 usage
instead of SWO we remove the ITM for these targets.

The nRF52 readme is updated to instruct users how to get SWO support if they need it.

This addresses #9695

Description

By default LED2 is now off on startup and ITM/SWO functionality can be regained by bringing in ITM through mbed_app.json as documented in updated nRF52 readme:

    "target_overrides": {
        "*": {
            "target.device_has_add": ["ITM"]
        }
    }

Tested that LED2 is now off on entry to main() and SWO capability can be brought back in through mbed_app.json.

Pull request type

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

Reviewers

@dlfryar @pan-

Remove ITM from NRF52_DK and DELTA_DFBM_NQ620 targets
The NRF52_DK and DELTA_DFBM_NQ620 have the SWO pin (p0_18) mapped to
LED2. This means that on startup LED2 turns on after the ITM is
initialized which is confusing. Since most users want LED2 usage
instead of SWO we remove the ITM for these targets.

The nRF52 readme is updated to instruct users how to get SWO support
if they need it.

@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from dlfryar , pan- and ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers Feb 19, 2019

@ciarmcom

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ciarmcom commented Feb 19, 2019

@TacoGrandeTX, thank you for your changes.
@dlfryar @pan- @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

@cmonr

cmonr approved these changes Feb 19, 2019

@pan-
Copy link
Member

pan- left a comment

Do you know if NRF52840_DK is impacted ?

@0xc0170 0xc0170 added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Feb 20, 2019

@0xc0170

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

0xc0170 commented Feb 20, 2019

CI started

@TacoGrandeTX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TacoGrandeTX commented Feb 20, 2019

@pan- On the nRF52840 SWO is mapped to pin P1.00 and it can also be a GPIO. Luckily on the DK board this pin isn't tied to anything and it just goes to header P24.

@mbed-ci

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

mbed-ci commented Feb 20, 2019

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 12 of 12 test jobs passed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

@dlfryar
Copy link
Contributor

dlfryar left a comment

+1 looks good

@cmonr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

cmonr commented Feb 20, 2019

@pan-

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pan- commented Feb 21, 2019

@TacoGrandeTX If I look at the pin mapping of the nRF52840_DK; it appears that BUTTON3 is also mapped on P0.24. Is there any side effect we should consider ?

@TacoGrandeTX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

TacoGrandeTX commented Feb 21, 2019

@pan- We don't have any contention for the buttons and LEDs on the nRF52840_DK, so we're good with those pins. If we were concerned about external ETM trace then they would lose Button 1 and Button 2 on P0.11 and P0.12 but that's all I see in the nRF52840 Product Spec.

@cmonr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

cmonr commented Feb 21, 2019

@pan- I think we're good to merge. Let us know if that isn't the case.

@cmonr cmonr merged commit 01aeb48 into ARMmbed:master Feb 21, 2019

27 checks passed

continuous-integration/jenkins/pr-head This commit looks good
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
jenkins-ci/build-ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-ARMC6 Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/build-IAR Success
Details
jenkins-ci/cloud-client-test Success
Details
jenkins-ci/dynamic-memory-usage RTOS ROM(+0 bytes) RAM(+0 bytes)
Details
jenkins-ci/exporter Success
Details
jenkins-ci/greentea-test Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-GCC_ARM Success
Details
jenkins-ci/mbed2-build-IAR Success
Details
jenkins-ci/unittests Success
Details
travis-ci/astyle Local astyle testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/docs Local docs testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/doxy-spellcheck Local doxy-spellcheck testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/events Passed, runtime is 10432 cycles (+127 cycles)
Details
travis-ci/gitattributestest Local gitattributestest testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/include_check Local include_check testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/licence_check Local licence_check testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/littlefs Passed, code size is 8408B (+0.00%)
Details
travis-ci/psa-autogen Local psa-autogen testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py2.7 Local tools-py2.7 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.5 Local tools-py3.5 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.6 Local tools-py3.6 testing has passed
Details
travis-ci/tools-py3.7 Local tools-py3.7 testing has passed
Details

@cmonr cmonr removed the needs: review label Feb 21, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.