Skip to content

Nrf52840 spim3 updates #13681

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2020
Merged

Nrf52840 spim3 updates #13681

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 30, 2020

Conversation

@winneymj
Copy link

@winneymj winneymj commented Sep 29, 2020 •
edited by 0xc0170
Loading

Summary of changes

Fixes for nrf52840 SPIM 3 implementation. Specifically:

  1. Correct definition of SPI2C_INSTANCES when using SPIM vs SPI (object_owners,c)
  2. Use NRFX_SPIM_XFER_TRX macro vs manually filling structure. (spi_api.c)
  3. Fix compile error in NRFX_SPIM_DEFAULT_EXTENDED_CONFIG where ordering of members does not match structure nrfx_spim_config_t (nrfx_spim.h)
  4. Use High Drive if using SPIM3 on MOSI and SCK pins. (nrfx_spim.c)

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

@mjwinney
Fixes for nrf52840 SPIM 3 implementation. Specifically:
38e6bdc 
- Correct definition of SPI2C_INSTANCES when using SPIM vs SPI
- Use NRFX_SPIM_XFER_TRX macro vs manually filling structure.
- Fix compile error in NRFX_SPIM_DEFAULT_EXTENDED_CONFIG where ordering of members does not match structure nrfx_spim_config_t
- Use High Drive if using SPIM3 on MOSI and SCK pins.
@mjwinney
Fix spacing
d60af09
@ciarmcom ciarmcom requested a review from a team September 29, 2020 23:30
@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

@winneymj, thank you for your changes.
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

@mergify mergify bot added needs: CI and removed needs: review labels Sep 30, 2020
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Sep 30, 2020

CI started

@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Sep 30, 2020

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_build-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_dynamic-memory-usage ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cloud-client-pytest ✔️

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 05ea20c into ARMmbed:master Sep 30, 2020
@mergify mergify bot removed the ready for merge label Sep 30, 2020
@0xc0170 0xc0170 added release-type: patch Indentifies a PR as containing just a patch and removed release-type: feature labels Oct 13, 2020
@mbedmain mbedmain added release-version: 6.4.0 Release-pending and removed release-type: patch Indentifies a PR as containing just a patch Release-pending labels Oct 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@0xc0170 0xc0170 0xc0170 approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

release-version: 6.4.0

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

@winneymj @ciarmcom @0xc0170 @mbed-ci @mbedmain @mjwinney