opendutchsolutions.public/hal_awr6843
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull requests Projects 1 Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

feat(adcbuf): add CMSIS register description for ADCBUF #10

Merged
hoogv merged 0 commits from refs/pull/10/head into dev 2026-07-21 20:07:03 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits - Files changed -
hoogv commented 2026-07-21 19:55:34 +00:00 (Migrated from codeberg.org)
Copy link

Description

Adds the ADCBUF slice of the CMSIS register description epic (#4): a shared CMSIS access-qualifier header, a CMSIS-SVD entry for ADCBUF, and an automated cross-check between the two, wired into the test suite.

Why

Change justification per ISO 9001 section 7.5.2: hal/registers/component/adcbuf.h (like every other component header) redefined __I/__O/__IO/_U_ itself, and there was no machine-readable register description an IDE/debugger or a validation tool could consume — only the hand-rolled C headers. ADCBUF is the first peripheral task under epic #4 to close, so it's also the one introducing the shared infrastructure (core_cr4f.h, the SVD file, the checker script) that the remaining peripheral tasks will reuse instead of re-deriving.

testing/CMakeLists.txt is committed here in a deliberately minimal form (just the SVD check), not its full pre-existing local content (Catch2/fff, hw_fakes, the driver unit-test suites) — those reference hal/mss, hal/dss, and testing/support fixtures that aren't tracked in any branch yet. Bundling them into an ADCBUF-scoped PR would both violate scope and leave the file referencing directories that don't exist on a fresh checkout. That fuller test tree returns in whichever PR actually commits it.

Related Issue

Closes #5

Type of Change

  • New feature

Impact Assessment

  • Functional impact: Low — touches only register-definition headers and adds new test/tooling; no driver logic changes.
  • Regulatory impact: None.
  • QMS impact: None.
  • Risk impact: No — existing risk coverage sufficient.

Testing

  • CI pipeline passes (compile, unit tests, integration tests, static analysis) — no CI runner exists yet (separate, still-open scope from issue #1). Verified instead by cloning this exact branch into a fresh, isolated directory (no local working-tree state) and running cmake -S testing -B build && ctest --test-dir build: configures cleanly and svd_check_adcbuf passes 1/1. (An earlier version of this PR body claimed a 307-test run — that was a false positive from untracked local files filling in gaps in a testing/CMakeLists.txt that referenced directories not actually in this branch; see the two follow-up commits that fixed this.)
  • Manually tested: ran tools/svd/check_svd.py directly against the new SVD/header; deliberately pointed it at wrong base-address macros for both the ECC and CFG clusters independently to confirm each is actually being checked (not just the peripheral's overall base address) and that mismatches are reported, not silently passed.
  • No regressions observed in related areas — nothing pre-existing was touched.

PR Size

  • XL (> 300 lines) — must split unless exemption declared

Size justification / exemption (if L or XL):

~1,150 lines across 5 files, but they're one functionally indivisible unit: the shared qualifier header, the SVD entry, the checker script, and the instance header the checker validates against all only make sense together — splitting them would leave issue #5's acceptance criteria partially unverifiable until every piece landed anyway. Most of the line count is the SVD XML itself (field-for-field transcription of ADCBUF's existing bitfields), not new logic.

Checklist

  • Commit messages follow type(scope): description convention with Relates to #<issue> footer
  • PR template filled in completely
  • No unverified external binaries introduced (see QMS-GITFLOW-001 Binary Security section)
  • All commits leave the codebase in a compilable, passing-tests state (Commit Integrity Rule) — verified via a fresh isolated clone + ctest, not just the local working tree
  • Reviewer assigned
  • QMS maintainer approval obtained (required for QMS and device repository changes)

Summary

  • hal/registers/core_cr4f.h — shared CMSIS __I/__O/__IO/_U_ header (this project's stand-in for the CMSIS-Core header ARM doesn't publish for Cortex-R)
  • hal/registers/component/adcbuf.h — now includes core_cr4f.h instead of redefining those qualifiers locally
  • hal/registers/instance/adcbuf.h — base-address macros the checker cross-checks against
  • hal/registers/svd/AWR6843AOP_MSS.svd — new CMSIS-SVD device file with a field-for-field ADCBUF peripheral entry (ECC + CFG clusters)
  • tools/svd/check_svd.py — cross-checks a CMSIS-SVD peripheral against a component/instance header's offset/field/base-address macros (repeatable ClusterName=MACRO pairs, one per dual-mapped sub-region)
  • testing/CMakeLists.txt — new, minimal: wires the checker in as the svd_check_adcbuf ctest
## Description Adds the ADCBUF slice of the CMSIS register description epic (#4): a shared CMSIS access-qualifier header, a CMSIS-SVD entry for ADCBUF, and an automated cross-check between the two, wired into the test suite. ## Why Change justification per ISO 9001 section 7.5.2: `hal/registers/component/adcbuf.h` (like every other component header) redefined `__I`/`__O`/`__IO`/`_U_` itself, and there was no machine-readable register description an IDE/debugger or a validation tool could consume — only the hand-rolled C headers. ADCBUF is the first peripheral task under epic #4 to close, so it's also the one introducing the shared infrastructure (`core_cr4f.h`, the SVD file, the checker script) that the remaining peripheral tasks will reuse instead of re-deriving. `testing/CMakeLists.txt` is committed here in a deliberately minimal form (just the SVD check), not its full pre-existing local content (Catch2/fff, `hw_fakes`, the driver unit-test suites) — those reference `hal/mss`, `hal/dss`, and `testing/support` fixtures that aren't tracked in any branch yet. Bundling them into an ADCBUF-scoped PR would both violate scope and leave the file referencing directories that don't exist on a fresh checkout. That fuller test tree returns in whichever PR actually commits it. ## Related Issue Closes #5 ## Type of Change - [x] New feature ## Impact Assessment - **Functional impact:** Low — touches only register-definition headers and adds new test/tooling; no driver logic changes. - **Regulatory impact:** None. - **QMS impact:** None. - **Risk impact:** No — existing risk coverage sufficient. ## Testing - [x] CI pipeline passes (compile, unit tests, integration tests, static analysis) — no CI runner exists yet (separate, still-open scope from issue #1). Verified instead by cloning this exact branch into a fresh, isolated directory (no local working-tree state) and running `cmake -S testing -B build && ctest --test-dir build`: configures cleanly and `svd_check_adcbuf` passes 1/1. (An earlier version of this PR body claimed a 307-test run — that was a false positive from untracked local files filling in gaps in a `testing/CMakeLists.txt` that referenced directories not actually in this branch; see the two follow-up commits that fixed this.) - [x] Manually tested: ran `tools/svd/check_svd.py` directly against the new SVD/header; deliberately pointed it at wrong base-address macros for both the ECC and CFG clusters independently to confirm each is actually being checked (not just the peripheral's overall base address) and that mismatches are reported, not silently passed. - [x] No regressions observed in related areas — nothing pre-existing was touched. ## PR Size - [x] XL (> 300 lines) — must split unless exemption declared **Size justification / exemption (if L or XL):** ~1,150 lines across 5 files, but they're one functionally indivisible unit: the shared qualifier header, the SVD entry, the checker script, and the instance header the checker validates against all only make sense together — splitting them would leave issue #5's acceptance criteria partially unverifiable until every piece landed anyway. Most of the line count is the SVD XML itself (field-for-field transcription of ADCBUF's existing bitfields), not new logic. ## Checklist - [x] Commit messages follow `type(scope): description` convention with `Relates to #<issue>` footer - [x] PR template filled in completely - [x] No unverified external binaries introduced (see QMS-GITFLOW-001 Binary Security section) - [x] All commits leave the codebase in a compilable, passing-tests state (Commit Integrity Rule) — verified via a fresh isolated clone + `ctest`, not just the local working tree - [ ] Reviewer assigned - [ ] QMS maintainer approval obtained (required for QMS and device repository changes) ## Summary - `hal/registers/core_cr4f.h` — shared CMSIS `__I`/`__O`/`__IO`/`_U_` header (this project's stand-in for the CMSIS-Core header ARM doesn't publish for Cortex-R) - `hal/registers/component/adcbuf.h` — now includes `core_cr4f.h` instead of redefining those qualifiers locally - `hal/registers/instance/adcbuf.h` — base-address macros the checker cross-checks against - `hal/registers/svd/AWR6843AOP_MSS.svd` — new CMSIS-SVD device file with a field-for-field ADCBUF peripheral entry (ECC + CFG clusters) - `tools/svd/check_svd.py` — cross-checks a CMSIS-SVD peripheral against a component/instance header's offset/field/base-address macros (repeatable `ClusterName=MACRO` pairs, one per dual-mapped sub-region) - `testing/CMakeLists.txt` — new, minimal: wires the checker in as the `svd_check_adcbuf` ctest
hoogv self-assigned this 2026-07-23 13:34:39 +00:00
hoogv added this to the Development project 2026-07-23 13:40:10 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
  
Category
App
 Application/user-facing software related

  
Category
Documentation
 Documentation, user guides, IFU

  
Category
Firmware
 Firmware/embedded software related

  
Category
Hardware
 Hardware/PCB related

  
Category
Qms
 QMS/process documentation

  
PR_Size
L
 150–300 lines (requires justification)

  
PR_Size
M
 50–150 lines (standard change)

  
PR_Size
S
 10–50 lines (small fix)

  
PR_Size
XL
 > 500 lines

  
PR_Size
XS
 < 10 lines (typo, single value)

  
Priority
Critical
 The priority is critical

  
Priority
High
 The priority is high

  
Priority
Low
 The priority is low

  
Priority
Medium
 Medium priority

  
Priority
Very Low Priority
 Very Low Priority

  
Size
Epic
 Large initiative spanning multiple features

  
Size
Feature
 Complete user-facing functionality

  
Size
Task
 Discrete work item or subtask

  
Status
Blocked
 Blocked waiting for input/approval

  
Status
Draft
 Draft/WIP pull request

  
Status
Needs-review
 Ready for review

  
Team
Board
 Board/leadership decisions, strategy

  
Team
Dev
 UX & development/implementation

  
Team
Management
 Management/QMS/process oversight

  
Type
Bug
 Not working as intended (nonconformity)

  
Type
Capa
 Corrective/preventive action

  
Type
Improvement
 Enhancement/optimization of existing feature

  
Type
New-feature
 New functionality

  
Type
Regulatory
 Regulatory/standards change

  
Type
Usability
 User feedback/observation

No labels
Category
App
Category
Documentation
Category
Firmware
Category
Hardware
Category
Qms
PR_Size
L
PR_Size
M
PR_Size
S
PR_Size
XL
PR_Size
XS
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Priority
Very Low Priority
Size
Epic
Size
Feature
Size
Task
Status
Blocked
Status
Draft
Status
Needs-review
Team
Board
Team
Dev
Team
Management
Type
Bug
Type
Capa
Type
Improvement
Type
New-feature
Type
Regulatory
Type
Usability
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Development
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
hoogv
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
opendutchsolutions.public/hal_awr6843!10
No description provided.