Skip to content

Subsystem for different uart implementations (e.g. peripheral UART and one over USB)#4163

Closed
jfischer-no wants to merge 5 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
jfischer-no:pr@software-uart
Closed

Subsystem for different uart implementations (e.g. peripheral UART and one over USB)#4163
jfischer-no wants to merge 5 commits intoRIOT-OS:masterfrom
jfischer-no:pr@software-uart

Conversation

@jfischer-no
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jfischer-no jfischer-no commented Oct 27, 2015

This PR allows the use of different uart implementations (e.g. peripheral UART and one over USB).
Depends on #4114 and serves as an example for #4155 . WIP

@jfischer-no jfischer-no added State: WIP State: The PR is still work-in-progress and its code is not in its final presentable form yet Discussion: RFC The issue/PR is used as a discussion starting point about the item of the issue/PR State: waiting for other PR State: The PR requires another PR to be merged first Area: drivers Area: Device drivers ugly labels Oct 27, 2015
@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

kaspar030 commented Oct 27, 2015

Shouldn't we generalize this? chardevops_t?

@jfischer-no jfischer-no mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2015
Closed
@jfischer-no
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jfischer-no commented Oct 27, 2015

Ne rather not. uart (uartdev_ops_t) fits better.

I would like to use something like (sys/Makefile):

ifneq (,$(filter periph_uart_extended,$(FEATURES_PROVIDED)))
    DIRS += uart
endif

to make it less ugly :-) Any idea?

@kaspar030
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

kaspar030 commented Oct 27, 2015

Ne rather not. uart (uartdev_ops_t) fits better.

I'm thinking, you're introducing a generic interface for read(), write(), poweron/off, and init.
The only thing uart-specific is "init", the rest would also work for, e.g., a tcp connection.

@jfischer-no
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jfischer-no commented Oct 27, 2015

@kaspar030 Ok, now I have understood you.

@jfischer-no jfischer-no removed the State: waiting for other PR State: The PR requires another PR to be merged first label Oct 28, 2015
@OlegHahm OlegHahm modified the milestone: Release 2016.03 Dec 8, 2015
@OlegHahm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

OlegHahm commented Mar 23, 2016

Still WIP, I guess it won't make it for this release. @jfischer-phytec-iot retag if you disagree.

@OlegHahm OlegHahm modified the milestones: Release 2016.07, Release 2016.04 Mar 23, 2016
@kYc0o
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

kYc0o commented Jul 25, 2016

WIP -> postponed.

@kYc0o kYc0o modified the milestones: Release 2016.10, Release 2016.07 Jul 25, 2016
@miri64
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

miri64 commented Oct 31, 2016

Postponed due to feature freeze

@miri64 miri64 modified the milestones: Release 2017.01, Release 2016.10 Oct 31, 2016
@OlegHahm OlegHahm removed this from the Release 2017.01 milestone Jan 14, 2017
@OlegHahm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

OlegHahm commented Jan 14, 2017

I remove the milestone because it seems quite unpredictable when @jfischer-phytec-iot will have time to finish this work.

@jfischer-no jfischer-no deleted the pr@software-uart branch January 23, 2017 09:15
@OlegHahm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

OlegHahm commented Jan 25, 2017

Why?

@jfischer-no
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jfischer-no commented Jan 25, 2017

Ups, sorry, excessive cleansing. But.. there was a discussion about this during summit, and it was rejected because it caused more latencies and code.

@OlegHahm
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

OlegHahm commented Jan 25, 2017

Thanks for the explanation.

@miri64 miri64 added Type: new feature The issue requests / The PR implemements a new feature for RIOT and removed quality defect labels Oct 1, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@haukepetersen haukepetersen

Labels

Area: drivers Area: Device drivers Discussion: RFC The issue/PR is used as a discussion starting point about the item of the issue/PR State: WIP State: The PR is still work-in-progress and its code is not in its final presentable form yet Type: new feature The issue requests / The PR implemements a new feature for RIOT

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants

@jfischer-no @kaspar030 @OlegHahm @kYc0o @miri64 @haukepetersen @LudwigKnuepfer