> So you recommend me to use CubeMX?
I don't know. This depends on where you see the fun factor - you've mentioned control, and for example that's why Cube/CubeMX is out of question for me. But you've also mentioned "create things" - and it is arguably easier to "create things" using Cube/CubeMX, or mbed, or any other prechewed "library" or "environment" or "platform" or whatnot.
Cube/CubeMX has its place, so has mbed, Arduino etc. Giving up control for comfort, and that's OK. There are professionals out there using it, and it's OK too. As long as they are content with its inherent and inevitable limitations and shortcomings - whether knowingly or not - they are go; as soon as they attempt to do something that was not envisaged by the "libraries" authors, they hit a wall. We see it here often. But then the same applies to barebones approach, when hitting limts of the chip itself. Except that the boundary is at a different place, and the programmer who goes for registers probably already has a good feeling where that boundary lies.
Documentation is erm... lacking for both cases. For Cube, you have some examples; I don't know how good are they to showcase CubeMX's usage, most of them were not created using CubeMX.
You always can try to "convert" examples from Cube to barebones, at least the simpler ones; Cube is open source even if it may be confusing and messy sometimes, but there are repetitive patterns. And you always can try yourself and come and ask here. You won't always receive a helpful answer.
Do you have a Disco?
JW
