Skip to content
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

Esp idf v5 fixes #5902

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 23, 2022
Merged

Esp idf v5 fixes #5902

merged 6 commits into from
Dec 23, 2022

Conversation

bandi13
Copy link
Contributor

@bandi13 bandi13 commented Dec 16, 2022

Description

Using the latest ESP-IDF environment there were some changes to the library and thus our stuff wouldn't compile out of the box.

@bandi13 bandi13 requested a review from gojimmypi December 16, 2022 17:04
Copy link
Contributor

@gojimmypi gojimmypi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I might have formatted this:

    double current_time(int reset)
    {
        #if ESP_IDF_VERSION_MAJOR >= 4
        TickType_t tickCount;
        #else
        portTickType tickCount;
        #endif

like this instead for readability:

    double current_time(int reset)
    {
#if ESP_IDF_VERSION_MAJOR >= 4
        TickType_t tickCount;
#else
        portTickType tickCount;
#endif

There should probably be something in the coding standards document for #define position and indenting. Generally they seem to always be fully left-justified unless (sometimes) when nested.

Also - this does seem to work for me in ESP-IDF v4.4.2; You've tested with v5?

@gojimmypi
Copy link
Contributor

Heads up your bandi13:ESP-IDF_fixes branch is a bit behind master and there are a couple of potentially interesting / related merge PR's pending. See #5871 and recently-merged #5903 and #5646

I might have given better commit names than "better fixes" (e.g. actually call out the version-check TaskHandle_t vs xTaskHandle changes).

Otherwise nice update that seems to work for me in v4.4! Did you encounter these problems in ESP-IDF5?

See also this curiosity: #5727 as well as #5319 (the related autogen question in #5883 ) and #5215

@gojimmypi gojimmypi changed the title Esp idf fixes Esp idf v5 fixes Dec 20, 2022
@gojimmypi
Copy link
Contributor

I tested this on ESP-IDF v4.4.2 and confirmed the benchmark and tests run to completion without error:

git clone https://github.com/bandi13/wolfssl.git bandi13-wolfssl-install --branch ESP-IDF_fixes --depth 1
. /mnt/c/SysGCC/esp32/esp-idf/v4.4.2/export.sh
cd bandi13-wolfssl-install/IDE/Espressif/ESP-IDF
./setup.sh
cd examples/wolfssl_benchmark
idf.py -p /dev/ttyS20 -b 115200 build flash monitor

# exit with Ctrl-[
cd ../wolfssl_test
idf.py -p /dev/ttyS20 -b 115200 build flash monitor

Note there's a warning in ESP-IDF v5.0 in #5909 about duplicate definitions in user_settings.h. It may be specific to the docker build. More work is needed to verify Espressif ESP-IDF v5 is fully supported in all of the ESP32 wolfSSL examples.

Although my change request has been implemented, my approval here is not authoritative and someone such as @dgarske should review and actually perform the merge.

@gojimmypi gojimmypi requested a review from dgarske December 20, 2022 21:55
@dgarske dgarske assigned dgarske and unassigned bandi13 Dec 21, 2022
@dgarske dgarske merged commit 29c46ce into wolfSSL:master Dec 23, 2022
@bandi13 bandi13 deleted the ESP-IDF_fixes branch December 27, 2022 15:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants