Hi Ilija, On 15/12/11 18:04, Ilija Kocho wrote: > It may be just enough to add a new target entry in ecos.db. > I am not familiar with Kwikstik I only know that it is based on same > chip as TWR-K40. Can you please point the differences between boards > with respect to: HAL, devices, etc.
I think HAL-wise the Kwikstik board is the same as the twr-40x256, it just exposes different features of the MCU through the attached devices, which include a microphone, a buzzer, an audio output, rechargeable battery (with usb charging), a dot-matrix LCD. The Kwistik is attractive because of its low cost (~$30), and even comes with an on board Segger J-Link chip! Seems like an affordable base for all kinds of hobby projects. I think just having an additional target might work with all the differences handled in device implementation, and all the HAL functionality subsumed under the twr-k40x256, e.g., in the case of the LCD. Tomas > > Ilija > > On 15.12.2011 17:57, Tomas Frydrych wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am looking at adding the Kwikstik to the current Kinetis boards, and I >> am wondering what would be the best way to approach this. >> >> Currently there are two Kinetis boards, the TWR-K40X256 and TWR-K60N512, >> with the directory structure something like this: >> >> kinetis/var/... - Generic Kinetis code >> kinetis/twr_k40x256 - K40 and twr-k40 code >> kinetis/twr_k60x256 - K60 and twr-k60 code >> >> Kwikstik is based on the same MCU as the twr-k40x256, so it needs the >> same MCU-specific code as the twr-k40x256 board, which I think is all, >> or nearly all of the code currently under the twr_k40x256 directory. >> >> I initially thought I'd just clone twr_k40x256 into a new kwikstik >> directory, but that's probably not the best approach for >> maintainability. I am thinking it might be better to split out the >> generic K40 code so it can be shared between distinct boards, but I am >> not sure where to split this to: should there be a separate k40x256 >> subdirectory and a corresponding package that the twr_k40x256 requires? >> Or is there a better way of approaching this altogether? >> >> Many thanks in advance, >> >> Tomas >> >>
