Flash new version 2V10 results in infinite loop #6442
Replies: 1 comment
-
Posted at 2021-09-06 by Robin --- cont --- Now this is where everything gets interesting. Running on Windows10. When I upload a previously working code block, modifying only the pin designation, the WebIDE console side locks up, with the inability to enter any content on the L-Hand console side. After many reduction attempts, I narrowed it down to the pin designator of the Neopixel require statement:
I also pointed this out in a separate companion post: > [Sanity Check for Neopixel pin Require statement](http://forum.espruino.com/conversations/367630/) It is quite possible that between 2V00 circa mid 2019 and 2V10 current mid 2021 that this issue was noticed and fixed. According to this reference:
and according to this reference:
GPIO16 may be used for deep sleep. --- more --- Posted at 2021-09-06 by Robin --- cont --- Now, I had an external EEPROM in use which required I2C and SPI was in use for corresponding MOSI MISO comm. That left mw with D4 GPIO2 which is also the onboard LED which I wanted to avoid, D0 GPIO16 which might be needed for deep sleep and D3 GPIO0. When I used Checking:
reveals that NodeMCU","name" : "D3" is required to access GPIO0 and "NodeMCU","name" : "D0" to access GPIO16 When using Checking using dump() shows that in either case, the referenced pin is always 'D0' despite trying to force a known state. I did find a note: 'GPIO16 is now supported in Espruino as a D16 without watch but with all software functiontions like PWM/I2C/SPI/etc' at: but, for which version(s)? So, the mfg docs imply GPIO16 is a general purpose I/O for pin D0, but it appears it is just an input. *(can anyone verify?)* --- more --- Posted at 2021-09-06 by Robin --- cont --- Performing a
Trying to set const pin = NodeMCU.D2; // GPIO4 for pin labeled 'D2' results in:
but uploading require("neopixel").write(pin, [0,0,63, 55,77,0, 55,0,77]); or even hard coding: require("neopixel").write(NodeMCU.D2, [0,0,63, 55,77,0, 55,0,77]); getPinMode(NodeMCU.D2); Hence the other post to determine which of the coding conventions is required for using neopixels on ESP8266 Posted at 2021-09-07 by @MaBecker
try to flash with dio Posted at 2021-09-07 by @MaBecker It is all about how the vendor manufactured the board, some use 4 wires (qio) and some 2 wires (dio) to communicate with the flash. Posted at 2021-09-08 by Robin Tue 2021.09.07 Thank you @MaBecker for the prompt reply and above link.
In post #1 I pointed out a successful flash years ago using "1v89" In addition pointed out that 2V00 just went flawlessly also. In esptool.py I am using attribute Under the assumption pointed out above, I find it a bit of a stretch to now change flash modes when all that has changed on the Espruino firmware download servers is the version. Posted at 2021-09-08 by @MaBecker run esptool with option flash_erase and than flash again. Posted at 2021-09-08 by @MaBecker Can confirm that 2V10 is broken and 2V09 is working for ESP8266. names of used test images: espruino_2v10_esp8266_4mb_combined_4096.bin espruino_2v09_esp8266_4mb_combined_4096.bin Posted at 2021-09-08 by Robin Wed 2021.09.08 Thank you for the verification @MaBecker I only tried the individual bin, also broken:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Posted at 2021-09-06 by Robin
Mon 2021.09.06 - Posted 05:14pm CST - ties in with another post I'm working on
The following content is most likely target'ed towards @MaBecker and @gfwilliams although others may chime in.
Just flashed current version 2V10 and resultant experience is not what is expected.
Unable to show results of
process.env
as device never boots to a stable state.From:
My device is mfg 0xe0 4016 and I had successfully flashed several years ago:
Last Modified 2021.08.13 > https://www.espruino.com/binaries/espruino_2v10_esp8266_4mb/ > https://www.espruino.com/binaries/espruino_2v10_esp8266/
I first erased flash and re-flashed three times, each with the identical output. I then tried the 512K version just to see what might happen. Reverting back to the original link under heading 'Build Content':
Indicates two versions:
espruino_2v00_esp8266 espruino_2v00_esp8266_4mb
and the note: 'travis build after 2018-10-23 12:00'
So, on a hunch I fetched version 2V00 and that went flawlessly.
At this point from mere frustration, I did not make an attempt to perform any other flash test.
--- more ---
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions