Config options for specific chips

[MabezDev]

Following on from the discussion here: #3001 (comment)

We might want a better solution than just documenting which cfg's are supported on each chip (the current solution).

We one quite large constraint when building this:

• we can't break builds when a config option is passed by the user, but the current target doesn't support that option. Doing so would break multi chip project setups.

With this constraint in mind, we still need to signal that the option isn't supported.

One idea I had:

(ab)use cargo cfg linting

Where a cfg isn't supported, we could choose not to emit this line:

esp-hal/esp-config/src/generate.rs

Line 392 in 16af010

println!("cargo:rustc-check-cfg=cfg({cfg_name})");

.

This would flag a warning in user code, that the cfg they're trying to use has no effect. Unfortunately I don't think we can control the error message here, so the message is quite vague - but maybe something we could document in an FAQ.

I would appreciate some more input/ideas here :).

I'm adding the 1.0 blocker label, though we might be able to add this later if we go with the above solution (iirc, introducing warnings is not a breaking change).

[bugadani]

Cargo doesn't print warnings that originate in an external crate, so I'm not sure if such a warning would be visible. And besides, I'd prefer not seeing warnings if my project happens to support two MCUs and I'm trying to set specific configurations for them. Even though a workaround exists, it's not entirely ideal that one is needed.

[MabezDev]

I always forget that warnings from 3rd party crates aren't forwarded to the user.

My instinct currently is to just document the chip the config option supports, but given that it's the current behavior, I'll keep this open a bit and see if we can think of something better.

[bjoernQ]

My initial idea to support this was a bit different

e.g.

[env]
ESP_HAL_CONFIG_PLACE_ANON_IN_RAM = "true"

# don't do it on C2
ESP32C2_ESP_HAL_CONFIG_PLACE_ANON_IN_RAM = "false"

ESP32C6_ESP_HAL_CONFIG_FLIP_LINK = "true"
ESP32H2_ESP_HAL_CONFIG_FLIP_LINK = "true"

i.e. optionally prefix a key with a chip makes it override the default or the non-specific setting

Downsides

• makes esp-config esp-specific (probably not a real problem)
• what about using esp-config in a crate which is agnostic to the target (we don't have s.th. like that I guess - and it probably won't hurt)
• can't apply an override to multiple chips (see the FLIP-LINK example)
• even if a config is chip specific we should emit cargo:rustc-check-cfg=cfg({cfg_name}) (is this a problem?)
• could we run into a similar situation which made us introduce the _CONFIG_ separator?

[bjoernQ]

Another thing we could but probably don't want to do is reading our own file (e.g. esp-config.toml) and populating the env-variables.

Could look something like this

[esp-hal]
place_anon_in_ram = true

[esp32s3.esp-hal]
psram-mode = "octal"

[esp-wifi]
mtu = 1524

Users could still override it via [env] and by setting env-variables

[bugadani]

and populating the env-variables

What would be the mechanism to do this? I'm not sure if a crate's build script can see the whole project's config file, and we can't really set env variables for other crates (i.e. from the project's build.rs, we can't affect esp-hal - #2156 (comment)).

[bjoernQ]

and populating the env-variables

What would be the mechanism to do this? I'm not sure if a crate's build script can see the whole project's config file, and we can't really set env variables for other crates (i.e. from the project's build.rs, we can't affect esp-hal - #2156 (comment)).

sure, we can't set env-vars for other crates but we can for the "to be compiled" crate which is enough - i.e. a crate would only pick it's own config keys

crate's build script can see the whole project's config file

Would be the same mechanism used by toml-cfg

[bugadani]

I guess it could work. I wouldn't see any reason (except that we now build on env vars in the HIL tests) to keep using env vars (at least as a user), but I guess that's not necessarily a big negative, just a bit of complexity we'd keep around.

[MabezDev]

I'd like to avoid an esp-config.toml file for a number of reasons:

• I don't like more than one way of configuring
  • What gets precedence, the file or the env?
• As with toml_cfg it gets weird when using --target-dir
• Another thing we need to document

I'm leaning towards the chip prefix override at the moment. I'm not seeing any obvious ways it can go wrong.

can't apply an override to multiple chips (see the FLIP-LINK example)

I'm not sure I understand this, in your example you are changing the settings for two chips? Did you mean multiple as in multiple at a time?

even if a config is chip specific we should emit cargo:rustc-check-cfg=cfg({cfg_name}) (is this a problem?)

I think yes, but it shouldn't be a problem