• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 152 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

MSPM0-SDK: MCAL 0.2.5: Inconsistent Module Naming Convention (Gx51x vs G351x)

Francois Charlot
Mastermind 30092 points

Part Number: MSPM0-SDK

Hi all,

Customer noticed an inconsistency in the the naming convention used for the Port module compared to all other installed MSPM0G MCAL plugins:

All Other Plugins (e.g., Adc, Dio, Can, etc.) are consistently named with the specific derivative: [Module]_TI_MSPM0G351x

The Port Plugin is named using the family designation: Port_TI_MSPM0Gx51x

Could you please clarify if this difference in naming is intentional for the Port driver, or if it is an error in the package intended for the M0G351x derivative?


Best regards,
François.

  • 0
    TI__Prodigy 400 points

    Hi,

    The difference in the naming conventions for Port and other modules is intentional to have the name Gx51x. This is done because Port plugin supports (-Q1 package) configurations which includes variants with convention G151x and G351x. While creating a project in EB Tresos with multiple modules, we get an option to choose the target name for the plugins in which we can select G351x for PORT and proceed for configurations along with other modules which only support G351x. Are you facing any issues with this at your end?