You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the bug
Starting in SDK version 2.11.0, many of the IOMUXC macro definitions have been renamed on the iMX RT1051 and iMX RT1052 but not the iMX RT106x family. The renames all follow patterns like the following, ie trivial shuffling of the device and channel number.
I am not sure of the reasoning behind this rename. RT105x and RT106x have identical IOMUXC setups for 99% of pins. We have shared libraries that are used in both RT105x and RT106x. After updating past the rename, we now need to maintain a macro table to switch out the IOMUXC definitions based on target type, somewhat defeating the purpose of iomuxc.h.
Describe the bug
Starting in SDK version 2.11.0, many of the IOMUXC macro definitions have been renamed on the iMX RT1051 and iMX RT1052 but not the iMX RT106x family. The renames all follow patterns like the following, ie trivial shuffling of the device and channel number.
I am not sure of the reasoning behind this rename. RT105x and RT106x have identical IOMUXC setups for 99% of pins. We have shared libraries that are used in both RT105x and RT106x. After updating past the rename, we now need to maintain a macro table to switch out the IOMUXC definitions based on target type, somewhat defeating the purpose of iomuxc.h.
To Reproduce
Diff the iMXRT1051 SDK 2.16.100 iomuxc.h with the iMXRT1062 SDK 2.16.100 iomuxc.h.
Expected behavior
Diff should be similar as the chips are very similar. Identical pin muxes (most of them) should have identical macro names.
Maybe apply the same renaming scheme used for the RT105x to the RT106x, or revert the renaming that was done to the 105x.
Additional context
This was not an issue (ie macro names were identical) until SDK 2.11.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: