Update to latest versions of the hardware headers #3050
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
bazel
bluetooth
board settings
boot_stage2
bug
build
c++
can't reproduce
clang
clib-interface
cmsis
code cleanliness
code size
compiler version issues
cyw43_driver
debug
discussion
documentation
duplicate
dynamic_clock
elf2uf2
enhancement
errata
filesystem
flash layout
floating point
FreeRTOS
hardware_adc
hardware_claim
hardware_clocks
hardware_dma
hardware_exception
hardware_flash
hardware_gpio
hardware_i2c
hardware_irq
hardware_pio
hardware_pwm
hardware_rcp
hardware_rtc
hardware_spi
hardware_sync
hardware_uart
hardware_vreg
hardware_watchdog
hardware_xosc
help wanted
host
IAR
installation
invalid
linker scripts
lto
lwip
mbedtls
missing API
needs reporter detail
networking
newlib
newlib-multicore
non-c
non-cmake
non-gcc
openocd
orphan PR
OS integration
pico_async_context
pico_base
pico_binary_info
pico_flash
picolibc
pico_lwip
pico_malloc
pico_multicore
pico_printf
pico_runtime
pico_stdio
pico_stdio_usb
pico_sync
pico_time
pico_util
pioasm
port
question
review
review2
rtos interop
runtime init
static library
svd
test
tinyusb
vscode
wifi integration
wontfix
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
gh-raspberrypi/pico-sdk!3050
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "latest-headers"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
fixes #2988
fixes #2380
fixes #1466
EDIT: also fixes #2842
EDIT: also fixes #2920
If it "cannot be changed", should it have
<access>read-only</access>? Or is it more "should not be changed"?This description of
M33_AIRCR_SYSRESETREQSis now identical to the description forM33_AIRCR_SYSRESETREQ, whereas previously this said "Secure state only".I guess if this is Secure-only, that's still useful info to know?
@ -464,2 +464,3 @@// to the GPIOs.// to the GPIOs. On RP2040 there are 30 GPIOs, so the two most// significant bits are hardwired to 0.#define PIO_DBG_PADOUT_OFFSET _u(0x0000003c)We probably don't need the RP2040-specifc comment in
src/rp2350/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/pio.h? 😉But if the same source-file is generating the PIO headers for both RP2040 and RP2350 then perhaps this isn't worth special-casing.
@ -19,3 +19,3 @@#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_BITS _u(0xffffffff)#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESET _u(0x00000001)#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESET _u(0x30004927)// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------The previous version of this PR included
SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESETvalues for both RP2040 and RP2350, but this new PR doesn't include theSYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESETvalue for RP2040?The RP2350 datasheet shows that the
ID_MMFR3register has a different field-layout to theID_MMFR2register. so maybe that means that the "(Description copied from array index 0 register M33_ID_MMFR2 applies similarly to other array indexes)" isn't really applicable here?Bit weird that the Copyright year has jumped forward in some files, and backwards in other files, but meh 😉
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@// THIS HEADER FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED -- DO NOT EDITI've no idea which version is "correct", but in #2905 the size of the dummy padding array changed in this file (and Graham commented "because it was wrong before"), but it has remained unchanged in this PR? 👀
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@// THIS HEADER FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED -- DO NOT EDITIn #2905 the
SYSINFO_GITREF_RP2040_OFFSETvalue changed from0x00000010to0x00000040, but it isn't changing in this PR?Hmmm, I wonder if the updates to the RP2040 headers have gone wrong somehow? In both
RP2040.svdandRP2350.svdthe "Warning: stop the PLLs before selecting dormant mode" text has changed to "WARNING: stop the PLLs before selecting dormant mode", and that change also appears insrc/rp2350/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/xosc.hbut it doesn't appear insrc/rp2040/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/xosc.h? (If my supposition is correct, this also might explain why the Copyright year has gone backwards in some files 😉 )The years going back is per a decision made to preserve the original date. If anything has moved forward, that's wrong.
As you know, the text source for register descriptions is based on the hardware present in the chip. Since both chips are quite a few years apart, I'm not surprised some descriptions have been tweaked.
Edit: SVDs have the year moving forward, so I've fixed that in the latest release
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@// THIS HEADER FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED -- DO NOT EDITWe need the change as the previous release was wrong, there are loads of internal only values in between.
Thanks, the regex used to patch this reg desc was too greedy. Fixed.
I was asked to coalesce these into a struct array, is the suggestion here to have each register as a separate member?
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@// THIS HEADER FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED -- DO NOT EDITRelated to the below ticket, we want to be using the newest version of sysinfo.h
@ -19,3 +19,3 @@#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_BITS _u(0xffffffff)#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESET _u(0x00000001)#define SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_RESET _u(0x30004927)// -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Not sure what happened to this PR as the generated headers are correct
I'm not on your team so I don't know what you were asked for, but it seems to me like it would only make sense to coalesce registers into a struct array, if the fields inside each of those registers has the same widths and offsets? (which isn't the case for
ID_MMFR2andID_MMFR3)But this is only a minor issue, so I guess we can address it in the next SDK release.
This changes
SIE_STATUS.CONNECTED(as well asSIE_STATUS.SPEEDandSIE_STATUS.SUSPENDED) from RO to WC. Is that correct @liamfraser , and if so should the same change also be happening tosrc/rp2350/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/usb.h?I'm going to merge though there is the one oustanding question above
actually someone should approve first!