#[doc = "0x00 - endpoint 0 register"] pub ep0r: EP0R,
        #[doc = "0x04 - endpoint 1 register"] pub ep1r: EP1R,
        #[doc = "0x08 - endpoint 2 register"] pub ep2r: EP2R,
        #[doc = "0x0c - endpoint 3 register"] pub ep3r: EP3R,
        #[doc = "0x10 - endpoint 4 register"] pub ep4r: EP4R,
        #[doc = "0x14 - endpoint 5 register"] pub ep5r: EP5R,
        #[doc = "0x18 - endpoint 6 register"] pub ep6r: EP6R,
        #[doc = "0x1c - endpoint 7 register"] pub ep7r: EP7R,

It would be useful to treat this as an array of 8 endpoints all with the same type, instead of 8 fields with different types.

As a workaround, is this safe?

fn get_ep(usb: &device::USB, ep: u8) -> &device::usb::EP0R {
    assert!(ep < 8);
    unsafe {
        let ptr: *const device::usb::EP0R = &usb.ep0r;
        &*(ptr.offset(ep as isize))
    }
}

I am opening the issue here but it applies to other device crates as well.
SVD file from which this library is generated describes the whole stm32f103 family. But not every peripheral available in all devices. For example basic timers are present only in high-density and XL-density line.
So to catch errors like usage of unavailable peripherals and to make library smaller I made separate SVD file for each type of microcontroller that I using. I even removed configuration bits for GPIO pins that are unavailable on given package. And it works surprisingly well. Now a program that tries to use unavailable peripherals or pins simply will not compile. It makes porting to different device much easier.
I would like to share my work but don't want to create clutter with crates like "stm32f103c8". Maybe better approach will be to somehow combine different variants of API into single crate with ability to select specific microcontroller? Is it possible to use features for that?

Getting an error when trying to compile on the new RTFM version:

#[app(device = stm32f103xx)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find interrupt in stm32f103xx

it looks like in the lm3s6965 crate you added:
pub use self::Interrupt as interrupt;

is that needed for this crate too?

For beginners (like me) it would be good if the readme could mention that the stm32f103xx-hal crate which builds on top of the register descriptions defined in this crate exists. That would make it immediately clear what the scope of each crate is.

hi Japaric,

I really appreciate your work and your effort to developp RUST in the embedded world.
After a successfull port on STM32F072, I try on STM32F103.

As STM32F72, I downloaded SVD file from the ST website for STM32F103.
I found somes differences with the svd file you used.
examples : ( right : st version )

Which version is better ?
Thanks !