|29 Nov 2023|
On core 1, that bootrom will "park" it waiting to be awaken.
On core 0, that bootrom I'll load 256bytes from the external spi flash and run whatever is loaded.
Those 256bytes should configure the spiflash interface and the xip block so that it matches the best performances of that flash device.
|ithinuel||Then it should jump into your application.||17:07:44|
|Jarrod Hamilton||Sorry I'm really new to this. So when I run probe-rs run --chip RP2040 do I need to add more? Do I need to add something to the config.toml file?||17:12:53|
|ithinuel||But your application should build &link with the "boot2" part set at the start of your binary.||17:13:51|
Do you have your code available online for us to review it?
Did you use one of our many examples or seeded your project with the template we provide ?
|Jarrod Hamilton||Here is a link to my question on GitHub with I think the important parts of my code. https://github.com/knurling-rs/probe-run/issues/429#issuecomment-1831514362 Here is the template I used. https://github.com/knurling-rs/app-template I didn't know you guys had a template before now. I can try that one! 😁||17:26:28|
|ithinuel||Note we recommend probe-rs since probe-run is no longer being developed.||17:29:23|
|ithinuel||* Note we recommend probe-rs (what probe-run is based on) since probe-run is no longer being developed.||17:29:57|
|ithinuel||You can install it with `cargo install probe-rs --feature cli`||17:30:35|
|Jarrod Hamilton||Okay! I'll try probe-rs and your template. Thank you!||17:33:15|
|dieseldev joined the room.||18:20:07|
Hello, I am trying to control my servo motor with PWM On the raspberry pi pico, but cannot seem to get anywhere with the right pwm values, here is the documentation from my servo:
and I have some code snippets, it is just modified example code, The problem I have is no matter what duty cycle values I pass in, I cannot get the full range of motion or set angles properly
In reply to @dieseldev:matrix.org
I think the clock divider may need to be set to 2 or 3 instead of 20.
my thought process is that given a system clock of 12MHz/ 63535 counts of the pwm counter or whatever / 3 = ~61 Hz
|dieseldev||oh ok, I thought it was one second, Thank you||19:49:06|
|ithinuel||I made this: https://crates.io/crates/i2c-write-iter||20:39:42|
|30 Nov 2023|
|Slushee changed their profile picture.||00:22:05|
|jannic|| dieseldev: I think the initial value of 20 was about right, if you are using the default system clock, because that is 125MHz, not 12MHz.|
The useful range for
|Mister VoLT joined the room.||11:44:08|
|spinfast changed their profile picture.||17:33:16|
|@victor1235:matrix.org joined the room.||23:02:14|
|@victor1235:matrix.org left the room.||23:08:01|
|1 Dec 2023|
|Mathias||Late to the party... From an arch-specific point of view, the answer is probably FVP: https://developer.arm.com/Tools%20and%20Software/Fixed%20Virtual%20Platforms For A and R profiles, the Architecture FVPs are most likely the ones you want to use. For Cortex-M, the closest thing is Corstone-300 in the Ecosystem FVPs (https://developer.arm.com/downloads/-/arm-ecosystem-fvps).||01:36:28|
|Mathias||Corstone-300 is a Cortex-M55. There are others FVPs (also called fast-models) for other Cortex-M cores but they requires commercial versions of Keil MDK or Arm Developer Studio. In my experience those are very complete and accurate models of cores (the rest of the "system" depends on the FVP), with a lot of options so they can be a little bit intimidating to get started. Note: they use a custom debug interface, but there is a (Rust-based) connector for gdb, https://github.com/Linaro/lite-cornea||01:55:11|
Ah that right, I understood the question as a test binary running on the core, not as binary modelling the core :D
|9names||that is how i intended the question, i still appreciate the response||07:50:52|
|9names||* the way you interpreted the question was what I meant (verifying that the system was honoring EABI, all variables initialised correctly) but I appreciate the hardware platform validation responses as well||07:52:50|
|9names||* the way you interpreted the question was what I meant (verifying that the software system was honoring EABI, all variables initialised correctly) but I appreciate the hardware platform validation responses as well||07:53:06|
|ithinuel|| * |
Ah that's right, I understood the question as a test binary running on the core, not as binary modelling the core :D