[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#868895: Bug#1043168: please include missing stub_flasher_32.json file



On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 02:28:20AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> A lot of work has happened in Debian and with upstream over the years to
> build these binaries from unmodified sources, which culminated with
> Debian shipping the stubs for the ESP8266, as well as for the ESP32
> RISC-V variants (ESP32-C2, ESP32-C3, ESP32-C6, ESP32-H2). See the
> 4.5.1+dfsg-0.1 and 4.6.2+dfsg-0.1 changelog entries, Debian bug #948096,
> as well as upstream issues #458, #499 and PRs #500, #501, #856, #858.
> 
> The reason that the same has not happened yet for the ESP32, ESP32-S2
> and ESP32-S3 stubs is that we lack the toolchain for them in Debian
> (gcc, binutils & picolibc). picolibc seems to have gained ESP32 support
> upstream in 1.7.9, and Keith Packard is both upstream and the Debian
> maintainer for it, so I suppose it won't be too hard to persuade him.
> gcc and binutils are more complicated. #868895 provides some context,
> and Jonathan McDowell, who maintains gcc-xtensa-lx106 and
> binutils-xtensa-lx106, is aware of the need. I think there is more of a
> backstory there, but he has the details.

When I originally ITPed the lx106/ESP8266 variants I got some strong
pushback about how we should really have a unified gcc/binutils that
would be able to cope with various Xtensa variants. That doesn't seem to
have happened. Faidon has done some work on building multiple versions
from a single source, and I've finally accepted this is a better
situation for now than not having the support at all.

As a first step I've renamed the source binutils-xtensa-lx106 package to
binutils-xtensa. I've got some changes pulled in from Faidon's work that
will then build an ESP32 binutils package (I don't have later devices to
test with) that I'll look at uploading once the new source package
clears NEW.

GCC is a bit more complex; when I tried previously I had problems with
ESP-IDF, and I don't think a version that doesn't allow building with
the upstream SDK is useful. I'll have a further poke at that to see if I
can figure out what was going wrong.

J.

-- 
Revd Jonathan McDowell, ULC | Protect the Human


Reply to: