New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Upgrade esp8266 to SDK v2.0.0.patch1 #925
Conversation
Import upstream improvements
merge v1.87 release into tve's fork
@tve https://github.com/espruino/Espruino/pull/924/files I'm not sure if your's also updated the docker file and the flash Readme? |
Mhh, I wasn't aware of the Dockerfile, I'll fix it, thanks for pointing it out. |
From the forum:
The Makefile update for the available rom was here: 60a1698#diff-b67911656ef5d18c4ae36cb6741b7965R509 New change: +ESP_FLASH_MAX ?= 479232 # max bin file: 468KB So 480 reserves 32K and 468 reserves 44K. I'm not sure I understand how you got this value? |
The flash layout is documented in https://github.com/espruino/EspruinoDocs/blob/master/boards/EspruinoESP8266.md#flash-map-and-access |
Ahhh - so this is for the 512M modules. The larger ones are not affected - They could still be built with Crypto and graphics? My concern is that people will be surprised if they were using the graphics module and it disappear from the firmware. Are we asking for trouble if then Makefile switched in graphics depending on the rom size? That's not going to work with the universal build is it? |
There is only a single build, so there is no notion of switching with ROM size. If someone wants to go in and move things around, that's fine with me. I don't use 512KB modules. Could also eliminate eeprom area and one of the flash save blocks for 512kb modules. But making those changes requires code changes and conditionals in a number of places. I just wanted to update to the latest SDK and add some fixes I've had queued up and I don't really have the energy to change flash layout at this point. |
I just ran the build again with USE_GRAPHICS, the problem is: |
Thanks - I notice you've added Also, just IMO but wouldn't just having |
WRT -g I did a build without -g and the difference is less than 100 bytes, IIRC with -g was smaller, actually. WRT Telnet I need to go back. The problem I was having was that there is both a class called Telnet and a device called Telnet. I renamed the class to TelnetServer so it's not shadowed by the device. If this doesn't make sense, I can go back and see what I was smoking... |
Thanks for the explanation. Odd about -g (although I never tried it with -Os as well). Well, it's ok - it'd be a lot tidier if we could do it with just the Telnet class, but I remember you had issues. What about |
Sorry, I'm not understanding your comment about Telnet.setup |
Well, you would have done Because |
Mhh, I'm gonna have to revert the change and re-test. What I thought was happening is that I would use |
Yeah, I think it's getting confused between the named variable and the class name because that whole system is a bit iffy (there is a branch to fix it, but it's a way off being ready). So are you saying that with your change, I think by using |
Recent pull requests have enabled crypto and graphics, which has put the size of the binary above the actual space available. I've disabled graphics to make things fit. If someone wants to propose a layout change or work on reducing the size that would be awesome. But just changing the max size before the Makefile bails out is not a solution...