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

Initial Cortex R-profile support. #945

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

alfedotov
Copy link

About year ago I had an attemp to upsream these changes. And still I see demand on such support.

@alfedotov alfedotov mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2020
@tomoveu
Copy link

tomoveu commented Jun 6, 2022

+1 this looks like a great addition, considering it has no merge conflicts with master.

This would solve #314 Could someone please review this PR, @llefaucheur ?

@christophe0606
Copy link
Contributor

@JonatanAntoni This is a CMSIS-Core contribution. Independent from CMSIS-DSP

@tomoveu
Copy link

tomoveu commented Jun 20, 2022

@JonatanAntoni This is a CMSIS-Core contribution. Independent from CMSIS-DSP

Could you please elaborate what this means? @christophe0606

Do we have to submit these changes to a different repository or in a different manner?

@JonatanAntoni
Copy link
Member

@tomoveu,

I guess Christophe is just wondering why I was asking him to review code in "my" area.
Your PR is totally fine here. I am just unable to confirm the code is correct. I am looking for some Cortex-R experts who can give the PR a review.

Thanks,
Jonatan

@bernardfitch
Copy link

+1 I too would like to see basic Cortex-R support like this in CMSIS-Core. I would like to encourage @christophe0606 and @llefaucheur to please review and pull these changes (if deemed appropriate) :)

If there is anything that I can do to help please let me know

(I am currently working on an R52-based chip design and continually building/testing code - coming from the M4 world it made me sad that there is no Cortex-R CMSIS code, having to revert to assembly for all but the most primitive of startup code seems like a backward step).

Bernard ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants