Jump to content

StefanG

Members
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    StefanG reacted to Nytblade in MSP430Ware?   
    I think I may injure my wrist typing out those long MSP430Ware function names It makes you really miss C++ namespaces.
     
    I don't use MSP430Ware but the "Code Examples" written in "traditional C" on this page http://www.ti.com/mcu/docs/mcuproductco ... tabId=3357 have been extremely helpful to me. They don't try to abstract anything.
  2. Like
    StefanG reacted to pabigot in MSP430Ware?   
    MSP430Ware currently only supports 5xx/6xx devices. When I was looking for a generic BSP solution for common tasks across all MCUs I looked at it, but didn't find it to suit my needs. I also found the coding style unnecessarily complex, e.g. explicitly passing the base address of the peripheral to each function and using macros to convert it to the register address, instead of recognizing that it's a constant for the MCU and just using the register name explicitly. (Yes the base address is useful when you have multiple USCIs, but for FLASH? No.)
     
    From a talk given to the local IEEE Computer Society by a TI Stellaris guy, StellarisWare was such a success that the other MCUs are trying to emulate it. The hour or so I've been able to spend with StellarisWare leaves me pretty impressed, and I'll probably use it for programming TI ARM boards, but MSP430Ware is not to my taste.
     
    FWIW I ended up implementing an alternative solution called BSP430 which does work on all MCU families, but also is designed around my environment and needs (command line-oriented development, rapid prototyping, portability across devices/boards). It depends on mspgcc at the moment but it appears newer versions of TI's compilers would also be usable with a little work. It does support the value-line series, though what I'm using it for right now requires beefier processors.
×
×
  • Create New...