[fpc-pascal] ARM CMSIS support
M.Santhoff at web.de
Sat Jan 9 13:42:36 CET 2016
On Sa, 2016-01-09 at 00:55 +0100, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
> Yes, you understand it correctly :)
> The FPC RTL only exposes the hardware, not the firmware stack on top.
> It might not be documented well anywhere but the weak linking with set
> defaults basically means you can declare interrupt handlers like this:
> procedure MySystickHandler; [public, alias: 'SysTick_interrupt'];
> // Code
I see. And there is no example in your testing code for stmf103fx.pas.
Since this should be documented somewhere:
Is that working for all embedded controller types? It should, the
declarations look pretty much the same.
I'm willing to collect some informations for starters and make a wiki
page out of it, but I'll have to ask a lot of questions first. ;)
On the wiki there is a lot of stuff, but what is missing a bit is a
general getting started page for newbies.
> For STM32 there's the stm32f103fw file on my site. There's also a
> version on Anton Rieckert's github page which is split up a bit nicer.
> Not sure what the status or compatibility is.
> Otherwise I can plug my project of converting the STM32F7 codebase here:
My current targets are a f4-discovery board and maybe some simple f103
controllers not choosen yet. Besides that AVR would be nice to have.
When that works maybe I'll be trying some SAM7S64 or S256 boards, too.
In principle all of them would be handled identically, besides their
The process of getting started would be the same on every simple
controller? Simple means having no OS, only bare silicon.
What I know is:
- get biunutils
- build cross compiler
But that's all. Mostly simple testing programs are given, but not many
explanations on declaring IRQ-handlers, loading up a binary, etc.
I like the technique of generating linker script and having memory
address specifications and more build in the compiler. When using C and
fiddling with Makefiles, linker scripts, not working code and so on can
be very frustrating. And I like Pacal. ;)
What tools do you use to load the binary up to the embedded target?
> If anyone other know of any nice embedded projects/links be sure to
> chime in :)
> I know some people have been working with Silicon Labs and Freescale
> codebases too. So there's a lot going on around.
> Best Regards,
> On 01/08/2016 11:58 PM, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> > Answering myself here:
> > On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 23:43 +0100, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> >> On Fr, 2016-01-08 at 23:23 +0100, Jeppe Johansen wrote:
> >>> CMSIS is a lot of things. What exact part of it are you asking about here?
> >> In that file for example from line 887 on:
> >> http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/rtl/embedded/arm/stm32f407xx.pp?revision=32386&view=markup
> >> there are lots of 'external'ly declared procedures. Where can I find
> >> them?
> > Hmm, that's only a list of interrupt procedures. After the declaration
> > there are some assembler seetings to have default values - OK, now I
> > think I understand. It's up to the user to let them be set to default or
> > redefine and implement the IRQ procedure.
> >>> FPC's embedded target has a bunch of controller units that are pulled in
> >>> depending on the -Wp argument. These define exactly what you see in the
> >>> units in the rtl/embedded/arm directory. In most cases just the physical
> >>> registers, the interrupt vectors(and sometimes the IRQ levels), and some
> >>> startup code. The mapping between the files and the controller names can
> >>> be seen in the huge table in compiler/arm/cpuinfo.pas.
> >> Have seen that, the wiki explains it.
> >>> There are no object or source files for other parts of CMSIS, so things
> >>> like the CMSIS-DSP and all cortex-m intrinsics don't work right now.
> >>> The cortexm3 and cortexm4 units that you can include in your uses clause
> >>> will model some of the missing functionality but very far from all.
> >> Your older implementation of STM32F103 found on your website has
> >> declarations and implementations of the most important parts. The "new
> >> style" sources included in fpc/rtl haven't. Or at least I can't find
> >> them.
> > No, it hasn't. I have read too many source files today. So there is only
> > the declaration stuff for accessing the internals of the SoC, timers,
> > peripherals and the like, OK.
> > Marc
> >>> Floating point support is very untested. Most of it should work, but
> >>> there might be some bugs. You can enable it by compiling your RTL and
> >>> application with -CfFPv4_S16. If you decide to test it please write on
> >>> the bugtracker if you run into problems.
> >> I think I'll have to wait a while, that not the right toy for starting
> >> up. ;)
> >> Thanks a lot!
> >> Marc
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>> Jeppe
> >>> On 01/08/2016 10:58 PM, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> looking at the embedded source code there has been done a lot of work.
> >>>> I'm interested in trying fpc on Cortex-M3 and M4, mostly from ST.
> >>>> While trying to get an overview of the sources I found the declarations
> >>>> are pulled into a processor specific file by external declarations. But
> >>>> where does it come from, does the linker pull in the cmsis object files
> >>>> or something?
> >>>> If so, how? There has to be a pointer to those files I couldn't find
> >>>> either.
> >>>> Second question is:
> >>>> Does the embedded target support hard floting point on STM32F4?
> >>>> TIA,
> >>>> Marc
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> >>> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
Marc Santhoff <M.Santhoff at web.de>
More information about the fpc-pascal