Support for the PIC18F25K50, PIC18F45K50, and the P-Star 25K50 Micro.#5
Support for the PIC18F25K50, PIC18F45K50, and the P-Star 25K50 Micro.#5DavidEGrayson wants to merge 3 commits intosignal11:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: David (Pololu) <dev-david@pololu.com>
Added config bits for the PIC18F25K50 and PIC18F45K50 to each example app (except the bootloader). However, these config bits will not be needed by a typical user of the P-Star because its config bits are controlled by the bootloader rather than the application. Note: the hid_composite app did not work on the P-Star when I tested it. Signed-off-by: David (Pololu) <dev-david@pololu.com>
…ions. Signed-off-by: David (Pololu) <dev-david@pololu.com>
|
Any news on this? I'd like to see this chip supported as well but it seems pull requests don't get much attention. As far as the code is concerned, I believe references to "P-Star" should be removed. That just another product that happens to be using the Microchip chip. The code should not be contaminated with such indications. This applies to the names "P-Star_25K50_Micro" in the config files. |
|
Yep, it's been two years now since I made this pull request. I thought it would get merged faster given that I discussed it with @signal11 before making it. On the other hand, the Microchip USB stack is Apache-licensed and it supports the PIC18F25K50 and XC8 out of the box, so is there any clear advantage to using m-stack? I am not saying that the Microchip USB stack is perfect, but if you are using the PIC18F25K50 then it would probably be easier to get started if you use the Microchip USB stack. |
2 participants
As we discussed earlier, this pull request adds support for the PIC18F25K50, PIC18F45K50, and our P-Star 25K50 Micro (a breakout board for the PIC18F25K50).
I tested all of the apps on the P-Star, and I also ran the unit tests, and everything seemed to work.
Thanks!