JumJum

Most recent activity

• Switching BLE on/off and get additional 29KB into heap

  @JumJum started

  • 8 comments
  • 140 views

  @Gordon replied
• Switching BLE on/off and get additional 29KB into heap

  in ESP32 • 6 days, 16 hours

  

  Is there an (easy) way to calculate how many vars would be needed, based on saved ?

• Switching BLE on/off and get additional 29KB into heap

  in ESP32 • 6 days, 17 hours

  

  Worked a bit on a switch for BLE.
  To be prepared for surprises, the idea is to calculate available jsVars.
  Assumptions are:

  • heap of 50000 bytes is sufficient
    
  • use steps of 100
    
  • maximum no. of JsVars is 20000
    Do you guys agree ?
    
    

  int heapVars;
  
  heapVars = (esp_get_free_heap_size() - 50000) / 16;
  heapVars = heapVars - heapVars % 100;
  if(heapVars > 20000) heapVars = 20000;
  jsVarsSize = heapVars;
  
  jsvInit();
  

  One more question could we do something like
  Bluetooth = nothing;
  NRF = nothing;

  or with a new (empty) object called isDisabled
  Bluetooth = new(isDisabled());
  NRF = new(isDisabled());

• Switching BLE on/off and get additional 29KB into heap

  in ESP32 • 1 week, 1 day

  

  In a very early state I found a way to switch BLE on or off under testing.
  Workflow right now is like this

  • added an ESP32 specific command (ESP32enableBLE(mode);)
    
  • this functions stores a flag in Flash (in the moment partition free)
    
  • HWreset the board
    
  • during startup, read the flag from Flash, and according to that init BLE, or not
    Results in my test environment is heap of 103388 to 74252.
    This would be around 2000 additional jsVars, if BLE is not used
    
    

  Before making this nicer, better tested etc, I've some questions

  1. Should we use partition free, or is there a better place ?
     
  2. Do we need a message during startup, that BLE is disabled ?
     
  3. Is there a way to make NRF, Bluetooth and others inactive, so they cannot be called by accident ?
     
  4. Is there an option to use of HWReset ?
     
  5. some other questions, not comin to my mind right now ;-)
     
  6. what should be default setting, with or without BLE ?
     
• SetConsole, ...

  @JumJum started

  • 7 comments
  • 94 views

  @Gordon replied
• SetConsole, ...

  in Porting to new Devices • 1 week, 3 days

  

  @Wilberforce, thats correct, first of all I've to pair in Admin screen. Same as with Puck.
  With actual version this step works fine, I see connected.
  If devicename is like PUCK* or Espruino now, the board is shown in Select list of WebIDE
  After click on connect, connection starts. on ESP32 I see the connected event
  Next, after a second or two, an MTU event appears which gives size of MTU (AFAIK) only
  And then, 3 more seconds later we get a disconnect event.

  Does windows expect something, that ESP32 does not deliver or ????

• SetConsole, ...

  in Porting to new Devices • 1 week, 3 days

  

  Problem was missing SetDeviceInitialised for Serial1.
  Now LoopbackA.setConsole() and Serial1.setConsole() works fine.

  BTW, looks to me, like LOOPbackA and LoopbackB are not initialised, at least flag is not set.

  One more success, Bluetooth.setConsole works fine, and next Serial1.setConsole from my Android with nRf UART V2.0 returns control to webIDE.
  Life can be so beautiful.

  Now I've to figure out, why Windows10 does not like my ESP32, .......

• SetConsole, ...

  in Porting to new Devices • 1 week, 6 days

  

  Oh, LoopbackA.setConsole(), and I get an illegal instruction panic
  If I call Serial1.setConsole() without LoobackA.setConsole before, everything looks fine.
  Now have to do some work to check stack and see how panic happens.

  Problem starts in jshUSARTSetup, have to dig deeper.

  Oh, this problem is fixed, default in switch for serial ports was wrong.
  But now the problem is the same as before with Bluetooth.
  Console does not come back.

  One more chance for me to dig deeper, .....

• SetConsole, ...

  in Porting to new Devices • 1 week, 6 days

  

  Now that Bluetooth.print works fine, next step is to test Bluetooth as console.
  First step is to write a simple function, which

  1. set a timeout
     
  2. in this, timeout set bluetooth to console
     2.1. set one more timeout
     
  3. in this timeout set Console back to Serial1
     Some prints are added to each step.
     
     

  Expectation for this function is,

  • after 1 sec console is switched to Bluetooth, which happens
    
  • 5secs later console is switched back to Serial1, which never happens
    
    

  Hopefully the following description is not too confusing

  function testConsole(){
    setTimeout(function(){
      Bluetooth.setConsole(true);
      setTimeout(function()  {
        //Bluetooth.print("BT \n");     Serial1.print("Ser BT \n");
        Serial1.setConsole(true);
        //Bluetooth.print("SER set\n"); Serial1.print("Ser SER set\n");
      },5000);
      //Bluetooth.print("BT set\n");    Serial1.print("Ser BT set\n");
    },1000);
  }
  

  Testing itself is

  • upload the function
    
  • start uart service in WebIDE
    
  • connect from my android to uart service with nRF UART v2.0
    
  • call the function TestConsole in WebIDE
    
    

  On WebIDE I see

  testConsole() // start of function(see function above)**
  =undefined
  -> Bluetooth // Message from firmware
  Ser BT set // Bluetooth is set to console
  Ser BT // before setting Serial to be console

                                 // message missing from firmware, that Serial1 is switched back from BT
                                // message missing from 2nd setTimeout, that serial is set to console
  

  In nRF Uart everything looks like expected

  RX: <- Serial1 //message from firmware, console switched from Serial1 to BT
  BT set // Bluetooth is set to Console
  BT // before switching back to Serial

  [J->Serial1 // message from firmware, console switched to Serial
  RX: Ser set // message from 2nd setTimeout, console is switched back to Serial1

• what happens after "Serial".setConsole ?

  @JumJum started

  • 9 comments
  • 177 views

  @JumJum replied