Restore EEPROM support #344
Conversation
Bring back includes from previous commit: 0f54d0f
Index is 32bit
Was causing the example not to appear
|
Hey @nseidle |
|
Ah! That makes sense. Yep, your update recommendation fixed the issue. I'm able to compile without the includes.extra. I've updated the PR. Let's let a few other folks kick the tires on release candidate but we should be good. |
| FlashIAPBlockDevice::read((uint8_t*)scratch, 0, _cfg.sram_bytes); // keep all of flash in sram in case we need to erase | ||
| if(memcmp((void*)(((uint8_t*)scratch) + idx), data, size)){ // compare desired data (data) to existing information in flash (scratch) | ||
|
|
||
| if(memcmp((void*)(((uint8_t*)scratch) + idx), data, size)){ // compare desired data (data) to existing information in flash (scratch) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This casting seems unnecessary now that scratch is a uint8_t.
|
I just noticed, after approving. Can we change this to merge into dev instead of master? |
|
I based off of rc but I suspect Windows GUI defaults to opening PR on main. Should be rc now. |
|
rc is actually an automatically generated branch that is based off dev. It takes the info in dev, and uses it to to build the precompiled libraries of the mbed submodule. Changed the base to dev, since I noticed I have that power too :D. I'll take one more look at this tomorrow before merging it in. |
In this commit, EEPROM compilation was fixed. But later in this commit, it was broken again.
This PR:
Nothing about this PR has me worried. The only question I have is why the
includes.extra="-I{cores.path}/mbed-os/drivers/"was removed. If this was an error, then I think this PR is good to go. If the removal was intentional because of some other issue then we need further review.