CatenaStm32L0 is misnamed

[terrillmoore]

This class name implies that this is for any STM32L0-based design.

But in fact, this is specifically for Murata-L082-based feather-like modules. As we will support other modules in the future that may contain modules from other vendors, we should call this something like CatenaMurata078 (or use CatenaCMWX1ZZABZ_078, which is the official name).

[terrillmoore]

@chwon64 Any preferences on the name? BTW, perhaps we should think about how we'd handle the AcSIP modules. There are two: S76S (LoRa only) and S76G (LoRa plus GPS). They use STM32L07x CPUs (not L082).

[chwon64]

@terrillmoore Do we have any reason that differentiate STM32L082 and STM32L07x? I think STM32L0 supports both L082 and L07x.

[terrillmoore]

Yes, but CatenaStm32L0 it presently has the pin-definitions for the Murata module, and some assumptions about how MCCI uses the Murata module on a board. So maybe #101 was correct (because it is a fact that CatenaStm32L0 really has a bunch of Murata-specific info), but the right response would have been to move the Murata-specific info to that layer and rename CatenaStm32L0LoRa to CatenaMurata078? Then future AcSIP (or other) STM32L0 modules could inherit from CatenaStmL0, have another abstract class that represents the module and the wiring as seen from the module, and then have concrete classes to represent the boards?

[terrillmoore]

Here's my mental reference model -- in practice there may be extra layers, but it simplifies to this. Suggests that the class hierarchy should be similar.

[chwon64]

Okay, I will rename CatenaStm32L0LoRa to CatenaMurata078 class and move out Murata specific to CatenaMurata078.

[chwon64]

Accidentally closed.

[chwon64]

Moved all pin definition from CatenaStm32L0 class to Catena boards specific classes.