Hi,
are those modules fully compatible regarding pin-out and footprint ?
Can I exchange one module with the other on my PCB without making any changes on the PCB ?
Thanks in advance!
Search found 63 matches
- Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:47 pm
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: PCB compatibility WROOM-32E and WROOM-32D modules
- Replies: 0
- Views: 1413
- Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:45 pm
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4733
Re: Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
Thank you guys for all the valueable input!
I think I will implement an additional external watchdog.
Do you have any suggestion IC for me?
I think I will implement an additional external watchdog.
Do you have any suggestion IC for me?
- Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:21 am
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4733
Re: Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
Hi and thanks for your replies!
I also thought about an additional timer/watchdog chip.
But don't you just shift the failure-problem from the ESP to the timer/watchdog?
Then the additional chip can fail...
I am a little bit stuck...
I also thought about an additional timer/watchdog chip.
But don't you just shift the failure-problem from the ESP to the timer/watchdog?
Then the additional chip can fail...
I am a little bit stuck...
- Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:41 am
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4733
Pin behaviour in case of chip defect
Hi, I have an application (see attachment), where I switch a N-Channel Mosfet with GPIO16 of ESP-WROOM-32E. GPIO16=HIGH switches the Mosfet ON, that switches a solenoid. The state of the solenoid is critical and has to be always in a controlled state. I have a lot code for monitor this (electrical c...
- Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:51 am
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: Schematic review needed
- Replies: 11
- Views: 9805
Re: Schematic review needed
Question regarding die Reset/EN pin and Bootpin GPIO0:
I have read somewhere, that it is ok, to keep these pins unconnected/floating for normal operation, because there is an internal pullup?
Is this correct?
Or shall I always use an additional pullup ?
I have read somewhere, that it is ok, to keep these pins unconnected/floating for normal operation, because there is an internal pullup?
Is this correct?
Or shall I always use an additional pullup ?
- Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 pm
- Forum: Hardware
- Topic: ESP32 Pico D4 hardware questions
- Replies: 1
- Views: 1734
ESP32 Pico D4 hardware questions
Hi,
- Does ESP32 Pico D4 SIP have a CAN 2.0 controller (like ESP32 WROOM module)?
I believe yes, but cannot find any official information...
- Can this SIP run @ 240MHz ?
Thanks in advance!
- Does ESP32 Pico D4 SIP have a CAN 2.0 controller (like ESP32 WROOM module)?
I believe yes, but cannot find any official information...
- Can this SIP run @ 240MHz ?
Thanks in advance!
- Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:52 am
- Forum: ESP-IDF
- Topic: Can't flash ESP32 on Ubuntu VirtualBox
- Replies: 2
- Views: 3920
Re: Can't flash ESP32 on Ubuntu VirtualBox
If I am not wrong, there should be a menuconfig option for the port configuration...
- Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:56 am
- Forum: ESP-IDF
- Topic: Simple questions about SPIFFS wear levelling
- Replies: 3
- Views: 5177
Re: Simple questions about SPIFFS wear levelling
SPIFFS becomes corrupt very fast, if something unexpected happens (eg. power-off during access). It also becomes very slow at a filling level @ ~50%. I also spend days after days with this issues and testing around with SPIFFS and FATFS. For me the best solution was to migrate to LITTLEFS. https://w...
- Tue Oct 20, 2020 11:45 am
- Forum: ESP-IDF
- Topic: wifi task on core0 influences precessing speed of core1 tasks
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3745
Re: wifi task on core0 influences precessing speed of core1 tasks
Hi,
thanks for your reply.
I read your post several times (hard to understand)...
Do you mean, that it could help to kick out all wifi related functions out of IRAM ?
Any idea, how I could realize this?
Thanks in advance!
thanks for your reply.
I read your post several times (hard to understand)...
Do you mean, that it could help to kick out all wifi related functions out of IRAM ?
Any idea, how I could realize this?
Thanks in advance!
- Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:53 pm
- Forum: ESP-IDF
- Topic: wifi task on core0 influences precessing speed of core1 tasks
- Replies: 3
- Views: 3745
Re: wifi task on core0 influences processing speed of core1 tasks
Nobody an idea?
Or is this the normal behaviour and there is nothing to do...?
Or is this the normal behaviour and there is nothing to do...?