Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added extra HSE Values for STM32G431xB #15385

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 8, 2023
Merged

Conversation

cooleo2
Copy link
Contributor

@cooleo2 cooleo2 commented Mar 2, 2023

Summary of changes

The STM32G431xB driver is changed to accept the HSE values of 4, 8 and 16 MHz

The original driver for the STM32G431xB required the HSE value to be 24MHz. However, this value is only applicable to the Nucleo boards, and not applicable to any custom STM32G431xB based boards. For custom boards, there is often HSE oscillators of other values, notably 8MHz.

Impact of changes

Migration actions required

Documentation

None

Pull request type

[X] Patch update (Bug fix / Target update / Docs update / Test update / Refactor)
[] Feature update (New feature / Functionality change / New API)
[] Major update (Breaking change E.g. Return code change / API behaviour change)

Test results

[] No Tests required for this change (E.g docs only update)
[X] Covered by existing mbed-os tests (Greentea or Unittest)
[] Tests / results supplied as part of this PR

Reviewers


Copy link
Collaborator

@jeromecoutant jeromecoutant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In fact, when HSE_VALUE is not 24MHz, error message is not correct,
value is supported but configuration (PLLM and PLLN values) are not correct to get a 160MHz SysClock value

@cooleo2 cooleo2 changed the title Added HSE Range Validation for STM32G431xB Added extra HSE Values for STM32G431xB Mar 4, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeromecoutant jeromecoutant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks OK, thx

@mergify mergify bot added needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Mar 8, 2023
@mbed-ci
Copy link

mbed-ci commented Mar 8, 2023

Jenkins CI Test : ✔️ SUCCESS

Build Number: 1 | 🔒 Jenkins CI Job | 🌐 Logs & Artifacts

CLICK for Detailed Summary

jobs Status
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_unittests ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-greentea-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-cloud-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-cloud-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-greentea-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-example-ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_build-example-GCC_ARM ✔️
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test ✔️

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 7e3ea68 into ARMmbed:master Mar 8, 2023
@0xc0170 0xc0170 added the release-type: patch Indentifies a PR as containing just a patch label Mar 8, 2023
@mergify mergify bot removed the ready for merge label Mar 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release-type: patch Indentifies a PR as containing just a patch
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants