-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
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
Zephyr RTOS STM32F7 error, example request #182
Comments
Also, if you could supply a sample project for STM32F4 native, with the correct directory / CMake / include tree that would be neat also. Thank you very much! |
Hi there, and sorry your having trouble with this. We've never used an STM32F7 ourselves, only STM32F4, though they appear to be pretty similar and Zephyr should support either of course. If I've understood correctly, and looking at your EDIT: re-reading what you posted, maybe you mean that your Concerning STM32F4-on-Zephyr, the directory layout etc. should be no different to that for any other Zephyr project, just follow their usual pattern and bring The only issue I'm aware of with using ST devices in Zephyr with We do have it on our TODO list to run Zephyr on non-Nordic chips so I will see if I can get hold of an STM32F7 board but I can't promise how quickly we will get around to doing this I'm afraid: at a minimum it will be weeks rather than days. |
The Nucleo 144-pin boards might be the most flexible choice. Cover the F4, F7, H7, U5, L5, etc |
@cturvey: excellent, thanks for the tip. |
Also @RobMeades as far I know you are in partnership with Mikroe, they have a click shield for the Nucleo 144 it maybe makes easier testing your own modules :) |
Yes, Mikroe and Sparkfun mainly. |
Not sure you're going to find this very helpful but...
With all of this I can see the target running through the porting tests happily enough: No crashes yet, and we're certainly into "real" code, calling Zephyr RTOS functions, etc. I will see if I can hack the debug output to send to the UART instead. |
Ah, yes, I edited the prj.conf file for our Zephyr
...and set I suppose the good news is that there's nothing fundamental wrong but this doesn't help you find out what is upsetting things for your case. In case it is useful, find attached a
. |
Hey @RobMeades ! Thanks for the really fast responses! Can you please share the full project with me maybe? I would like to see the full project's structure. |
There isn't a "proper" project really, I just modified our That built to completion and ran our tests as intended, it just needed the few modifications in the prj.conf file to send the log output to the right place. But this isn't really an example of how a "normal" Zephyr project would be organised, if there is one: as indicated, we (I, at least) don't use Zephyr in our usual development environment so we don't know what a "normal" Zephyr project would look like. Putting it another way: don't take our advice! We are merely a submodule, in Zephyr terms, an add-on to a "normal" project. Surely the Zephyr documentation indicates what a good structure might be? |
Hey @RobMeades ! Thanks for the fast response times! I've tried the zephyr recommended way, without success. I'm know thinking the native STM32 way, but with the default .ioc project way (because I have an existing project in that structure). I was looking at #3 but that does not have details how can I add it to an existing project through eclipse. Do you have any experience with this? Also, is Unity mandatory for just including the lib? Thanks |
Sorry you didn't get anywhere with Zephyr. Issue #3 is very old now, from the days when we used Eclipse-style projects with STM32F4; we moved away from trying to maintain the What we do instead is provide a The README.md in the runner directory describes how to pass conditional compilation flags into the EDIT: on a more general note, if I remember correctly, the main issue with all of these IDEs, Eclipse included, is that they have difficulty with the concept of "out of tree" builds, by which I mean that the project files and metadata etc. are in one place and the source files etc. are NOT BENEATH the project/files/metadata in the same directory tree. In other words, they like this:
...but they do not like this:
...or this:
Personally I find this an utter pain: the location of the source files should have absolutely nothing to do with the location of the metadata, and this is particularly true where you have third-party code (which This is why people use Anyway, those are just my complaints, my approach would be to:
All my opinions of course. |
In commit b627d1ff8686631f5d6c64a81fa06ec4f0c9735 we have added to the With that I'm going to close this issue: feel free to open re-open it, or open a new issue, if there is more to discuss. |
Dear U-Blox Team!
I know that you only test the lib with Zephyr OS on nRF boards and Linux, but it would be great to supply a real example for (porting) STM32 series with Zephyr.
Hence, it is considered the easier and quite powerful way of porting the lib; it would be nice to have a bit more architecture samples for Zephyr, not just nRF, which has built-in support for it.
I currently have an issue when I set
CONFIG_UBXLIB=y
in prj.conf with the module installed. The code compiles and flashes but immediately catches a hard fault, even if I include the ubxlib.h in my main or not on my STM32F767BI board.sample_z_app.zip
Do you have any tips, please?
Thank you very much for the help!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: