Update USB driver #320
Update USB driver #320
Conversation
| @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ use usbd_serial::{SerialPort, USB_CLASS_CDC}; | |||
|
|
|||
| #[entry] | |||
| fn main() -> ! { | |||
| let dp = pac::Peripherals::take().unwrap(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have deprecated the stm32 name in favor of pac
src/lib.rs
Outdated
| feature = "stm32-usbd", | ||
| any(feature = "stm32f102", feature = "stm32f103") | ||
| ))] | ||
| #[cfg(any(feature = "stm32f102", feature = "stm32f103"))] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Coud feature=stm32-usbd be used instead here?
src/usb.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| fn enable() { | ||
| let rcc = unsafe { (&*RCC::ptr()) }; | ||
| cortex_m::interrupt::free(|_| unsafe { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this not make the unsafe region larger than nessecary? It's only required for the ptr, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As far as I understand unsafety, the unsafe operation here is accessing the memory via a pointer constructed in unsafe way, not just constructing the pointer. So larger unsafe region looks more correct compared to what we had before.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, the unsafe code create a reference, not a pointer. So creating this reference is hightly unsafe, but using the reference is not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Creating this reference is better inside the interrupt::free. So I propose to just move the let rcc line inside the interrupt::free.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With #344 be merged we don't need critical section as it uses bit-banding.
src/usb.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| fn enable() { | ||
| let rcc = unsafe { (&*RCC::ptr()) }; | ||
| cortex_m::interrupt::free(|_| unsafe { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Creating this reference is better inside the interrupt::free. So I propose to just move the let rcc line inside the interrupt::free.
|
bors r+ |
No description provided.