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

Target flash algorithm optimizations #1569

Open
9 tasks
perigoso opened this issue Jul 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
9 tasks

Target flash algorithm optimizations #1569

perigoso opened this issue Jul 28, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
Enhancement General project improvement

Comments

@perigoso
Copy link
Contributor

perigoso commented Jul 28, 2023

This is a list of target implementations that can benefit from a cleanup and optimization of the flash algorithm using the new target flash API implemented in #1205

  • ch32f1 (in dire need, its a macro hell)
  • efm32
  • lpc_common
  • nrf51
  • nxpke04
  • renesas
  • stm32f1
  • stm32g0
  • spi (target flash api can be further leveraged)

This list was obtained by manually analyzing the code and is opinionated by nature, may also be incomplete

This issue is meant only to serve as a parent/reference and track the individual cleanups, that will be handled in their own issues/PRs

@dragonmux dragonmux added the Enhancement General project improvement label Jul 28, 2023
@dragonmux
Copy link
Member

The STM32F1 Flash erase handling has now been modernised, but we didn't yet touch the Flash write routine. That gets the first target on this list closer to being cleaned up

@perigoso
Copy link
Contributor Author

perigoso commented Sep 1, 2023

As part of #1399 I'm doing a large rework of ch32f1 and stm32f1 (maybe stm32g0 too at some point), I have not pushed said rework but let this serve as a warning to avoid wasted effort reworking said targets

@dragonmux
Copy link
Member

We did more recently do an overhaul of the ch32f1 support, as part of straightening things out for the native firmware variants introduction, however it can probably do with more work as we didn't address any real structural problems there.

Let us know what you think!

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants