Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ESP_IDF_VERSION is now in ESP8266 RTOS SDK version 3.4 #276

Closed
3 tasks done
trombik opened this issue Jan 5, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed
3 tasks done

ESP_IDF_VERSION is now in ESP8266 RTOS SDK version 3.4 #276

trombik opened this issue Jan 5, 2022 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@trombik
Copy link
Collaborator

trombik commented Jan 5, 2022

Device type:

  • [] ESP32
  • ESP8226

Framework version:

  • [] ESP-IDF latest master
  • [] ESP-IDF 3.2.x
  • [] ESP-IDF 3.3.x
  • ESP8266 RTOS SDK latest master
  • ESP8266 RTOS SDK 3.4

Describe the bug:

ESP_IDF_VERSION, and other related variables, such as ESP_IDF_VERSION_MAJOR, and ESP_IDF_VERSION_VAL, are included in ESP8266 RTOS SDK version 3.4. it is now possible to remove esp_idf_lib_helpers if all esp-idf versions have them.

as always, there is a catch: make/version.mk and cmake/version.cmake state that it is 4.0.0.

@trombik trombik self-assigned this Jan 5, 2022
@UncleRus
Copy link
Owner

UncleRus commented Jan 9, 2022

On the one hand, I've just revised the esp_idf_lib_helper code and it seems pretty appropriate to me:

  • Firstly, this header defines handy macros like HELPER_TARGET_ESP32.
  • Secondly, it will be very convenient to add to it any global workarounds for the entire ESP-IDF, which, I am sure, will be needed in the future.

On the other hand, getting rid of unnecessary dependency is always great.

So far, the arguments for leaving esp_idf_lib_helper as is, seem more weighty to me.

@trombik
Copy link
Collaborator Author

trombik commented Jan 23, 2022

agreed.

@trombik trombik closed this as completed Jan 23, 2022
@omani omani mentioned this issue Dec 10, 2023
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants