An odd difference between homologous functions in hal_uart vs hal_usart.

[elKarro]

Hi, any idea about why stm32xx_hal_uart functions write to USART control registers by ATOMIC_CLEAR_BIT()/ATOMIC_SET_BIT(), while homologous stm32xx_hal_usart functions write to the same registers by CLEAR_BIT()/SET_BIT()?

In example:
UART_DMATransmitCplt() -> ATOMIC_CLEAR_BIT(huart ->Instance->CR3, USART_CR3_DMAT);
USART_DMATransmitCplt() -> CLEAR_BIT(husart->Instance->CR3, USART_CR3_DMAT);

Since both UART/USART are referred to by the same USART_TypeDef structure, I'd be expected to use them in the same way. So, is that due to some undocumented difference in the silicon between UART/USART?

[TDK]

UART is asynchronous in the sense that RX and TX can be happening at the same time, independently of each other. If using DMA, the TX interrupt could pre-empt the RX interrupt if you have them set up that way. USART is not, they happen synchronously with a single clock signal. So the interrupts should not overlap each other and there is no need to make "atomic" accesses.

USART is close to SPI in terms of architecture.

[Pavel A. · Accepted solution]

'By convention' (or 'historic reasons') the HAL based code uses stm32xx_hal_uart module for both USART and UART IPs, for the most common async mode. So it looks that the stm32xx_hal_usart module is neglected. Do you think you have a genuine need for the "uart" module?

[elKarro]

I think I haven't a genuine need for both, since I always write my own drivers :)
I only read HAL code to try to fill the lack of documentation and this time a neglected module adds even more chaos.

USART has a S (sync) more than UART, the peripheral struct itself is named USART_TypeDef, but stm32xx_hal_uart module is maintained while stm32xx_hal_usart is neglected?
For 'historic reasons' I see nations where they write the year in letters... the unification should be applied to the stm32xx_hal_usart module, don't you think?

"With Cube and a Nucleo, the deli worker too can build a speed controller for his slicer!"
Come on ST, less marketing and more engineering.

[Andrew Neil]

---

@TDK wrote:

USART is close to SPI in terms of architecture.

---

but only when used in the sync mode, surely?

when used in async mode, a USART is just a UART, surely?

[elKarro]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Pavel A.]

> I think I haven't a genuine need for both, since I always write my own drivers :)

This is the best :)

>  the unification should be applied to the stm32xx_hal_usart module, don't you think?

I guess they wanted to unify USARTs and UARTs (perhaps LPUARTs too) at the HAL level, all covered by stm32xx_hal_uart module. stm32xx_hal_usart should then be dropped.  The differences should remain in the low level (LL) modules as they are closest to the register-level. The world is not ideal, may this be our worst problem.