Anecdote about this summary at the bottom:
> This setup gives you the best of both worlds: ESP-IDF and FreeRTOS manage Wi-Fi, BLE, and system tasks on Core 0, while Core 1 runs your bare-metal Rust code at full speed with zero scheduler interference.
I am doing something somewhat like this, but with separate MCUs instead of separate cores. I flashed Esp-Hosted-MCU onto an ESP-32 (C3, but any including S3 will work). This is official firmware which turns the ESP into a "radio co-processor", so you can treat it like a SPI or UART Wi-Fi/BLE chip.
On another MCU (STM32), I run bare-metal firmware in rust which talks to the radio over SPI. Wi-Fi uses the ESP IDF, and BLE uses standard HCI commands.
> This is official firmware which turns the ESP into a "radio co-processor", so you can treat it like a SPI or UART Wi-Fi/BLE chip.
Kinda funny because the ESP8266 basically started off as a WiFi "co-processor" with AT commands sent over UART. People quickly discovered it had a good amount of power and you could run your entire application on the ESP8266 instead of using it as a co-processor. That led to an explosion in popularity for "makers" because the chip was so cheap and capable for projects at the time, and I think that led to the ESP32 becoming so widely known.
Interestingly, Espressif nowadays does something similar on the ESP32-P4 which is RiscV but doesn't have builtin Wifi/BT. So they tend to pair it with an ESP32-C6 which runs the WiFi stack and firmware that communicates with the P4 using SDIO. Not bare metal though, but similar dual-mcu setup for wifi/bt.
I didn’t know about hosted-MCU! I just started using the ESP-AT firmware for an ESP acting as a radio co-processor on a project at work - do you know how hosted-MCU differs?
I did glance at the readme and get the impression that hosted-MCU works for all compatible ESPs and seems more flexible and powerful, where ESP-AT is for select ESP chips and is more limited.
I don't, and haven't used ESP-AT. It sounds like AT may use a text-based protocol (Something that was big a while back?). Esp-Hosted uses Protobuf/RPC to access IDF commands, and HCI direct.
Yes you can pin it to core 1 whilst pinning all other tasks to core 0. Then will never be interrupted or preempted (except by interrupts created on core 1)
This is a great blog, I love the I Built a WebAssembly Runtime in 5 Days Because I Was Tired of Paying for Cloud Run [1], . You do a great job at showcasing your creativity for solving problems. I can tell that you genuinely got a lot of satisfaction from escaping big cloud FaaS, for literally fun and profit. I need more blogs like this.
This depends on what resources you're counting. If you're counting the developer cycles, it is not.
ESP-IDF+FreeRTOS has great value: it solves a host of mundane problems that need solving in real products. Discarding all of that value is foolish; you should preserve it, and look to keep your work aligned with the recent ESP-IDF and FreeRTOS evolution, so future you can adopt updates and supported tooling in a timely manner.
However, you also need at least some of your work to be hard real time, bare metal code. You do this through hardware peripherals, precision memory management, and tight ISRs that do not contend with whatever FreeRTOS or some Expressif driver is up to. Most of all, you want to never have to rework these parts because something in ESP-IDF and/or FreeRTOS, both rapidly moving targets, has changed.
Dedicating cores (0 for FreeRTOS, 1 for you) provides exactly this, and why ESP-IDF supports this model.
There is an ugly truth here. Ideally, one should not need to resort to such things. If the model and runtime behavior of the vendor's stack were extremely mature and could be relied upon with high confidence, it would not be necessary. However, anyone that has ever actually dealt with real time requirements and/or needed to fully exploit hardware peripheral capabilities in the real world of endlessly changing, incomplete, buggy BSPs/RTOSes/etc., knows that they probably won't live to see that.
On basic microcontrollers, mixing message/command I/O with application threads on the same core often lead to missing incoming commands. So it's relatively normal to separate them to their own core free of application logic.
This is reasonably common - Nordic and ST do this as well on the nrf-53 and STm32WB/L respectively. It's convenient for concurrency, and separation of concerns.
Also, running the network stack on a separate core allows it to be encrypted and signed, so that end users can't (easily) reverse engineer it. Which sucks for those of us who would like to run fully open-source code without binary blobs.
For instance, compare the reference manuals for the STM32WL3R and the STM32WB microcontrollers. The former has a single CPU, and it has almost 250 pages of detailed documentation about exactly how the hardware is controlled at a register level. The latter runs the network stack on an auxiliary CPU, and the manual just has a block diagram and a sentence that says "use our drivers" (which are only available in encrypted format).
The newer model, C3, C6, C5 all have RSIC-V cores which make it a dream to run Rust (basically: rustup target add riscv32imac-unknown-none-elf).
Here is a good introduction: https://kerkour.com/introduction-to-embedded-development-wit...
reply