Removed SWCLK and SWDIO pins from pinmap? about mbed-os HOT 4 CLOSED

Hi,

Why are the pins disabled? If a user wants to use the SWD interface I guess he should just not configure those pins.

We (LPC1114 porting team) are planning to make LPC1114FN28 board with mbed interface chip soon.
If these pins are configured to other than SWD (and program into flash), mbed interface chip cannot communicate with target (LPC1114) device unless switch to ISP mode manually which is very annoying.

Therefore, we explicitly fixed them to SWD mode (and removed them for pinout).

Regards,
Toyomasa Watarai

from mbed-os.

As toyowata said, we want to protect users from thoughtless SWD brick-up.

from mbed-os.

I see good point, I already ran into that problem myself on a custom board
:)
Would it be an idea to keep them in and do something like this:

static const PinMap PinMap_ADC[] = {
{P0_11, ADC0_0, 2},
{P1_0 , ADC0_1, 2},
{P1_1 , ADC0_2, 2},
{P1_2 , ADC0_3, 2},
#if DEVICE_SWD_PINS_AVAILABLE
{P1_3 , ADC0_4, 2}, // SWDIO
#endif
{P1_4 , ADC0_5, 1},
{P1_10, ADC0_6, 1},
{P1_11, ADC0_7, 1},
{NC , NC , 0}
};

For devices that use a (ROM) bootloader with low pin counts the few extra
I/O's could come in very handy, it would also make it more obvious whats
going on in the source code.

On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:17:17 PM UTC-7, ytsuboi wrote:

As toyowata said, we want to protect users from thoughtless SWD brick-up.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/74#issuecomment-24784828
.

from mbed-os.

I see good point, I already ran into that problem myself on a custom board :)
Would it be an idea to keep them in and do something like this:
(snip)

Cool. I like your idea and will be testing it locally in our LPC1114 branch.

Thanks,

from mbed-os.