Open-CMSIS-Pack Technical Meeting 2022-06-28

Participants

Joachim Krech
Luís Tonicha
Daniel Brondani
Jaeden Amero
Eric Finco (ST)
Frédéric Ruellé
Bill Fletcher
Maxime DORTEL
David Jurajda
Jonatan Antoni
Holt Sun
Kyle Dando

Slides

Meeting Notes

Specification Change Board Review

#24

JK: Laurent asked the question why license could be associated with API definition. The API could be associated with a different license.

FR: PKCS#11 is an example - the API has one license but your implementation can have another.

EF: So can keep this independent?

JK: Yes.

#111

JK: Agree - should we decouple the board extension vs general extensions?

FR: Maybe a specific need - why would a software component depend on a board

JK: Board could maybe have certain flash or hardware module - in csolution may want to associate a specific layer with a specific board. What was the usecase that triggered this?

HS: Have a component/flash/external chips that are board specific - so we have a software component only applicable to the board

EF: It’s the board or the part/component on the board?

HS: Specific for the board.

#95

JK: Wanted to have more details on this.

DJ: Understood it might be an optional parameter.

JK: Set this for review?

#124

FR: Think we need one source of information - if we go for pdsc then we get rid or rzone. There is a duplicate of information.

JK: Ok to keep open for another week?

EF/FR: Yes

#25

JK: Would be good for people to review - so we can have changelog files associated with components on top of the release notes file

#112

FR: Interest also from ST’s side. Happy to discuss with NXP colleagues.

JK: Helpful if you can self-organise. Anyone else interested - please leave a comment in the issue if you want to be involved.

#120

JK: Should we take this to the review?

EF: Yes … can also look internally to see if we are able to share more proposals.

Add <csolution> element to *.PDSC format

JK: Have example in GitHub - a TF-M build

HS: Don’t know how tools will deal with this information.

JK: Don’t have an immediate answer how it would be represented in IDE. Will take it back as an action to visualise a potential way.

AOB:

#179 discussion