Skip to content

Updated TARGET_STM32 board pinMap_PWM table with GPIO_NOPULL #14521

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 14, 2021

Conversation

AnishKumarHCL
Copy link
Contributor

@AnishKumarHCL AnishKumarHCL commented Apr 8, 2021

Summary of changes

  1. removed pinmap api call from pwmout_init_direct api in pwmout_api.c

  2. Modified STM32_gen_PeripheralPins.py script by replacing GPIO_PULLUP with GPIO_NOPULL in print_pwm function

  3. Updated all STM32 target boards PeripheralPins.c and PeripheralPinMaps.h files by replacing PinMap_PWM table GPIO_PULLUP to GPIO_NOPULL

PWM PinMap table from PeripheralPins.c was like this :
{PA_0, PWM_2, STM_PIN_DATA_EXT(STM_MODE_AF_PP, GPIO_PULLUP, GPIO_AF1_TIM2, 1, 0)},
I have replaced GPIO_PULLUP with GPIO_NOPULL in all STM32 targets PeripheralPins.c / PeripheralPinMaps.h files.
{PA_0, PWM_2, STM_PIN_DATA_EXT(STM_MODE_AF_PP, GPIO_NOPULL, GPIO_AF1_TIM2, 1, 0)},

In pwmout_api.c Line:200
https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbed-os/blob/master/targets/TARGET_STM/pwmout_api.c#L200
removed pin_mode api call which hardcoded with PulNone.

STM32_gen_PeripheralPins.py aslo updated for generating PeripheralPins.c with PinMap_PWM table with GPIO_NOPULL

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation


Pull request type

[x] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[x] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

Reviewers


@jeromecoutant please review this PR

@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested review from jeromecoutant and a team April 8, 2021 14:00
@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

ciarmcom commented Apr 8, 2021

@AnishKumarHCL, thank you for your changes.
@jeromecoutant @ARMmbed/team-st-mcd @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jeromecoutant jeromecoutant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PWM tests OK in ST CI

@mergify mergify bot added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Apr 13, 2021
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Apr 13, 2021

CI started

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Apr 13, 2021

Jenkins CI Test : ✔️ SUCCESS

Build Number: 1 | 🔒 Jenkins CI Job | 🌐 Logs & Artifacts

CLICK for Detailed Summary

jobs Status
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_unittests ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cmake-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-greentea-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-greentea-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cmake-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cmake-cloud-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-cloud-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cmake-cloud-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-cloud-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cmake-example-test ✔️

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 8b8f4e5 into ARMmbed:master Apr 14, 2021
@mergify mergify bot removed the ready for merge label Apr 14, 2021
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Apr 14, 2021

This PR does not contain release version label after merging.

@mergify mergify bot added the release version missing When PR does not contain release version, bot should label it and we fix it afterwards label Apr 14, 2021
@0xc0170 0xc0170 added release-type: patch Indentifies a PR as containing just a patch and removed release version missing When PR does not contain release version, bot should label it and we fix it afterwards labels Apr 14, 2021
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Apr 14, 2021

Version label fixed

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants