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

cpu/kinetis: features provided not properly defined according to series #11423

Closed
fjmolinas opened this issue Apr 19, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed
Labels
Type: bug The issue reports a bug / The PR fixes a bug (including spelling errors)

Comments

@fjmolinas
Copy link
Contributor

fjmolinas commented Apr 19, 2019

Description

Since in base Makefile.include, Makefile.fatures for a BOARD is included after $(RIOTCPU)/$(CPU)/Makefile.include there is not definition of KINETIS_SERIES when calling this statement

ifeq (EA,$(KINETIS_SERIES))
FEATURES_PROVIDED += periph_ics
else
FEATURES_PROVIDED += periph_mcg
endif

Therefore the statement has not effect and the FEATURE_PROVIDED is allways periph_mcg.

Steps to reproduce the issue

Add $(info Kinetis series: $(KINETIS_SERIES)) just before the above statement and call the below statement for any Kinetis board.

make -C examples/hello-world/ BOARD=pba-d-01-kw2x

Expected results

See in terminal:


make: Entering directory '/home/francisco/workspace/RIOT/examples/hello-world'
Kinetis series: W
Building application "hello-world" for "pba-d-01-kw2x" with MCU "kinetis".

Actual results

make: Entering directory '/home/francisco/workspace/RIOT/examples/hello-world'
Kinetis series:
Building application "hello-world" for "pba-d-01-kw2x" with MCU "kinetis".

Versions

Related Issues

#9913

@fjmolinas fjmolinas added the Type: bug The issue reports a bug / The PR fixes a bug (including spelling errors) label Apr 19, 2019
@aabadie
Copy link
Contributor

aabadie commented Jan 3, 2020

@fjmolinas, is this issue still valid ? I don't think as now the check is done on CPU_MODEL variable. Do you confirm that we can close ?

@fjmolinas
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fjmolinas, is this issue still valid ? I don't think as now the check is done on CPU_MODEL variable. Do you confirm that we can close ?

Yep, closed. Thanks for the reminder.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Type: bug The issue reports a bug / The PR fixes a bug (including spelling errors)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants