Open-CMSIS-Pack Technical Meeting 2022-03-29


Mar 29, 2022


Daniel Brondani

Kyle Dando

Maxime Dortel

Evgueni Driouk

Mark Edgeworth

Bill Fletcher

Graham Hammond

Samuel Hultgren

Reinhard Keil

Joachim Krech

Laurent Meunier

Anca Oprea

Frederic Ruelle

Holt Sun

Cristian Tepus

David Jurajda (NXP)


Sourabh Mehta





Meeting Notes

Issues for Review


MD: The standard mixes identification and classification. Have usecases where need to associate information of the same level to a component. E.g. sensors - would like to associate two or more values for the same information.

RK: This would not change any semantics or dependencies - just additional metadata.

MD: Yes.

DJ: Created issue #94 to separate identification and classification. Believe identifiers should be as short as possible.

ME: Have a problem with idea - seems to be evolving into a standard for each customer. Don’t understand why to include information which can’t be standardised/shared.

MD: Cannot specify everything. Not everyone agrees.

FR: As this keyword is used for searching it can be silicon vendor specific including marketing terms for the vendor. Can only specify that there is a search keyword and you can do some matching on it.

ED: Can offer key/value pairs - then it would be similar for everyone.

MD: The idea is to share the same structure but not impose specifying the information.

RK: Strings are visible to the user and could be confusing. Do you need a hidden field?

DJ: For us - something used for development but it shouldn’t be public. Will discuss with colleagues.

RK: Accept Mark’s comment but believe should accommodate external development processes.


FR: Agree with double approach. Need flexibility and reproducibility.

LM: Strong requirement from our team.

SH: Works well in combination with log file


JK: Additional linker flag?

SH: C and C++ flags are not guaranteed to be compatible. At the moment don’t know if you should specify C or C++ flags.


SH: Natural extension to provide same support in yaml files.

DB: Proposal has the assumption that the files are separated into project_1 and project_2. This may not be the case.

SH: Expect yaml files would be named uniquely even if in the same directory.


FR: Would like to keep the flexibility. Need to lock the tools in the cprj for reproducibility.

DB: Interactive bash script isn’t supported by all platforms.

RK: All you need is the config files to add a new compiler?

FR: Are there so many compilers - can we specify them? Maybe it’s more the versioning.

CMSIS-Toolbox update (0.9.3)


Meeting Recording