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
We exclude all models labeled common, which leads to exclusion of any ARM Cortex-M, for example, This might give the wrong impression. Can we fix this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The difference in numbers comes from the fact that for the counters we count CPU families (which is IMO closer to the reality of what RIOT supports), and in the CPU page we only CPUs as the appeared grouped in our build system. We could make them equal by showing this number in the counters instead. There is currently no documentation entry per CPU family, only per CPU group, that's why we don't show the families in the CPU page.
i agree that the current counters better reflect reality.
it is, though, odd that prominent cpus such as Cortex-M.. are not shown on the CPU page. what we probably should do is to add boxes for the "common" cpus but remove "common" in the labels.
With the new feature metadata we might have a better information source, as that splits up CPUs to have some hierarchical structure, and it also goes into more detail (the CPU="stm32" is split up in features into feature_cpu_stm32f7 etc).
https://www.riot-os.org/cpus.html shows 32 items but the index page says 63 CPUs. This is confusing.
We exclude all models labeled
common
, which leads to exclusion of any ARM Cortex-M, for example, This might give the wrong impression. Can we fix this?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: