I think I've found the issue: It seems that the flags are lost in the BLE stack, in file "btc_gap_ble.c", function "btc_to_bta_adv_data". The input object "p_adv_data" still contains them, but they're not copied to the output object "bta_adv_data". By changing... if (p_adv_data->flag != 0) { mask = ...

Fyi, it's working fine after I've increased the number of handles in esp_ble_gatts_create_service

Hi Neil, that was also my first guess, but it turns out that it just takes 200 nanoseconds to toggle the output high and low again. Meanwhile, I also tried the idea with the loop and the performance is much better. Doing an "f1 += f2" 100 times takes only 64 microseconds, 640 nanoseconds per additio...

additional info, assembly output of the compiler generated with -save-temps, plus some comments from the Xtensa instruction set architecture reference manual: call8 vTaskSuspendAll .LVL110: .loc 1 272 0 movi.n a11, 1 movi.n a10, 0x12 call8 gpio_set_level <------ t=0 .LVL111: .loc 1 273 0 l32r a3, .L...

Hi, according to the datasheet, the ESP32 seems to contain a hardware FPU, but in my tests, I get very bad FPU performance. For example, the following addition of two "float" variables and assignment to a third "float" variable (all 3 declared as volatile so that they don't get optimized away) takes...

I'm adding two characteristics to a service in the ESP_GATTS_CREATE_EVT event: gl_test.char_uuid[0].len = ESP_UUID_LEN_16; gl_test.char_uuid[0].uuid.uuid16 = ...; esp_ble_gatts_add_char(gl_test.service_handle, &gl_test.char_uuid[0], ESP_GATT_PERM_READ, ESP_GATT_CHAR_PROP_BIT_READ); gl_test.char_uuid...

The struct esp_ble_adv_params_t contains a 'flag' field:

uint8_t flag; /*!< Advertising flag of discovery mode */

It seems that this field is ignored in the implementation?

Greetings
Andreas

Hi Daniel, there's another issue in the bootloader code, see here: http://www.esp32.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=615 I've "fixed" it in my checkout of bootloader_start, function bootloader_main(): sa = ota_select_map[0]; // TODO // The [128] is a workaround to make this consistent with the app_update co...

We've been trying to get OTA updates work too and have succeeded.
You may find our blog post useful: https://blog.classycode.com/over-the-ai ... .yujyiq29c

Feedback welcome

cheers,
Andreas

Hi, I guess the following is a bug: The bootloader code assumes that the two flash sectors follow immediately after each other (bootloader_start.c): sa = ota_select_map[0]; sb = ota_select_map[1]; The app_update component assumes a fixed distance of the two structures of SPI_FLASH_SEC_SIZE (=4096) b...