ESP IDF Partitions API #511
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Its only not building, because nightly is broken right? Its otherwise in a state where i can look at it now? |
|
Yes and yes. |
Vollbrecht
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
Vollbrecht
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
Vollbrecht
reviewed
Nov 15, 2024
Vollbrecht
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2024
…ic of alignment is treated explicitly where applicable)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Exposes the
esp_partition_tas well as the wear-levelingwl_handle_tAPI that lives on top.No safe way to create an
EspPartitioninstance, but everything else is safe API.Also optionally implements the blocking
embedded-storagetraits, if the corresponding new feature is enabled.No async for now, and it anyway would be a workaround so not sure it is worth it (another thread).
I think folks are better implementing a trivial "async"
embedded-storageimpl over the blocking one, and then scheduling it in a low priority/high-latency executor, where the lost (millis?) in writing to/erasing the storage won't be noticed.Also closes #405