Re: STM32F4 GNAT Run Time System - roadmap

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Anything that can be done to make adding an MCU easier is
> worthwhile. In the MSP430 case I had a parser for the C header files
> so that all MSP430s were available (to the extent the parser worked)
> but that won't work across multiple manufacturers.
>
> So establishing a framework into which someone can plug in the details
> of a new MCU, or which guides or helps him in doing so, would be
> important.
>
> Specific MCUs it would be good to target:
> TI have several families, some with low cost Launchpad boards,
> including the Stellaris. They have announced anew "MSP432" line aiming
> squarely at their own ultra-low-power MSP430 market but with a Cortex
> core.
>
> And notably they have the Hercules series, again with cheap
> Launchpads, aimed at high reliability for industrial and automotive
> markets - with dual CPUs operating in lockstep to detect errors.
>
> http://www.ti.com/ww/en/launchpad/launchpads-hercules.html
> http://uk.farnell.com/texas-instruments/launchxl-rm42/dev-board-rm42-
> hercules-launchpad/dp/2341348
>
> What better platform for running Ada?

Well, I see your point; but my approach was to try for an Ada RTS,
rather than a BSP. I think you're asking for a BSP written in Ada (or at
any rate easily usable from Ada.

The reason for choosing FreeRTOS as a basis was that it decouples the
Ada RTS from the BSP; so provided _someone_ has ported FreeRTOS to the
board (and, at least judging by STM, its C BSP) we are at a good
position to get Ada up and running.

I don't know what would be involved in "a framework into which someone
can plug in the details of a new MCU". Sounds like a major exercise.