Michael, Thanks for the merges, and for your precious spare time (unfortunately, same issue here :-)) I do not have any preference for or agains wolfSSL nor mbedTLS ; just my lack of knowledge of the project history, and the fact that the component was there and failed to compile had me take a few steps to make it work. If the preference is to use mbedTLS, so be it ; may be we should completely remove wolfSSL in the future then ? Regarding the integration, I understand the pros / cons of each one. I'd be tempted to push the "small patches with #ifdef" approach as far as possible, because I believe it'll make the review process easier and help us to confirm that there are no regression / impact. Also, I believe that "fixing" all those warnings, etc... will lead contributors to produce code that will respect those more strict compiler settings in idf4 and 5. There are however bigger changes on the road (thinking about the deprecation of TCP/IP Adapter replaced with ESP-NETIF ; which can also co-exist with idf3) which may need us to make such a decision. If you're not opposed, I'll try to continue the "small patches" dance on github, with (of course !) no obligation to merge. Let the review happen, and if a PR is not merged it won't be an issue - we will discuss the best way to do it. I'll try to make all the changes as independent as possible, sometime a rebase will be needed but we may be able to reduce the gap this way. Regards, Ludovic Le 19/02/2023 à 21:15, Michael Balzer a écrit :
Ludovic,
you're totally right being impatient, sorry for the delay. My spare time is currently rare, but I've at least now merged your bug & compatibility fixes so far.
Actually one of the next things I wanted to try/determine is why you want/need to use wolfSSL instead of mbedTLS, which we've been using since wolfSSL failed so miserably about the Let's encrypt root certificate transition. Is there an issue with mbedTLS in idf5?
We still need to decide on the integration way. Mark's suggestion was doing the idf5 transition in a separate branch that will later become the new "master". That would keep the idf3 build clean from any regressions, but need merging any work done on that branch into the idf5 branch, which may become a lot of additional work, depending on the time needed to finish the transition. Adding IDF version switches to all code sections that need differentiation may introduce some additional points of failure, but also makes identifying the idf5 rework sections easy. I haven't come to a final opinion on this, but I tend to merging this into the master as you suggest, once we know it doesn't impact idf3 compatibility.
The idf5 build branch does not yet build using idf3, currently failing with a wolfssl issue:
In file included from /home/balzer/esp/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/vehicle/OVMS.V3/components/wolfssl/wolfssl/wolfssl/wolfcrypt/sha256.h:96:0, from /home/balzer/esp/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/vehicle/OVMS.V3/components/console_ssh/src/console_ssh.cpp:52: /home/balzer/esp/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/vehicle/OVMS.V3/components/wolfssl/wolfssl/wolfssl/wolfcrypt/port/Espressif/esp32-crypt.h:30:24: fatal error: esp_random.h: No such file or directory
Regards, Michael
Am 19.02.23 um 16:29 schrieb Ludovic LANGE:
Hi Michael, Hi list,
Thanks Michael for having taken the time to reproduce the build, and thus making this branch go from the state of "urban legend" to "has been confirmed at least once" :-)
I hope more of you will be able to follow the instructions of Michael, that are very clear and should ease your work when wanting to test this branch.
Ideally, I wanted that some of you having both the time (...) and a vehicle to test would be able to use this build as a daily driver, hoping that the known missing parts would not be a showstopper. Let me know, and also if you have some spare cycles you can check https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/issues/6028 in order to help fix some remaining issues on this library we depend on.
In the meantime, I believe we can try to integrate (part of) this branch in master. I already started to distillate some parts of this in multiples MRs here https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pulls?q=is%... ; which could be merged without -I hope, but the review will confirm- any impact nor regression to the current master branch.
Let me know if I should continue in that direction, and sorry for sounding impatient about it :-)
Regards,
Le 18/02/2023 à 10:12, Michael Balzer a écrit :
Ludovic,
the issue is bound to the docker image version, I was using "espressif/idf", which is "latest".
The build works using the same sdkconfig with "espressif/idf:release-v5.0" (and again fails at that mbedtls module when switching back to the "latest" image).
So to build the current experimental state, I recommend using the docker image and basically doing the steps Ludovic formalized in the github action:
### SETUP ###
cd ~/esp/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3
# setup branch: git remote add llange git@github.com:llange/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3.git git branch -t experimental-esp-idf-build-workflow llange/experimental-esp-idf-build-workflow
# switch to branch: git checkout experimental-esp-idf-build-workflow git submodule update --init --recursive
# apply mongoose patch: git apply --directory=vehicle/OVMS.V3/components/mongoose/mongoose vehicle/OVMS.V3/support/mongoose-espv5.patch
# install v5 sdkconfig defaults: cp vehicle/OVMS.V3/support/sdkconfig.defaults.esp5 vehicle/OVMS.V3/sdkconfig.defaults
# install v5 idf components: cp vehicle/OVMS.V3/support/idf_component.yml.esp5 vehicle/OVMS.V3/main/idf_component.yml
### BUILD ###
cd ~/esp/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/vehicle/OVMS.V3
# launch docker shell: docker run --rm -v $PWD:/project -w /project -it espressif/idf:release-v5.0 # init docker image (needs to be done on every start): apt-get update && apt-get install -y dos2unix
# OPTION 1: start with default config: rm vehicle/OVMS.V3/sdkconfig # NOTE: this will build for ESP32 >= rev3, excluding the SPIRAM bug workarounds
# OPTION 2: update your existing sdkconfig: idf.py menuconfig # → press '/' # … enable FREERTOS_ENABLE_BACKWARD_COMPATIBILITY # … disable FREERTOS_ASSERT_ON_UNTESTED_FUNCTION # … disable MG_ENABLE_SSL
# build: idf.py build
# flash & start USB monitor: idf.py app-flash && idf.py monitor
The build boots & works, issues you described excluded.
An issue I didn't expect:
I (0) cpu_start: Starting scheduler on APP CPU. E (0) task_wdt: esp_task_wdt_add(747): TWDT was never initialized … E (10) task_wdt: esp_task_wdt_add(747): TWDT was never initialized
…and then repeated 4x per second: E (3130) task_wdt: esp_task_wdt_reset(783): task not found
I'll try to find the cause, as we cannot silent these ("early" logging) they make using the shell challenging.
But, besides that, it has Wifi & cellular connectivity, so looks very promising -- nice work, Ludovic!
Regards, Michael
_______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
_______________________________________________ OvmsDev mailing list OvmsDev@lists.openvehicles.com http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev