Open jamesadevine opened 3 years ago
@mmoskal thoughts?
yes, you can disable the whole driver, but what prevents you from specifying the bootloader addresses?
Nothing on my particular board. Though, in the future we might have some boards that support USB, but do not yet have UF2. I think it is better to not cause a compiler error by default in any case.
so if bootloader range is not defined you could just not add "info_uf2.txt" file and don't check for handover in writeBlocks. Typically the user would instantiate (or derive from) this class and add more files.
@mmoskal see https://github.com/lancaster-university/codal-core/pull/135 . Let me know if this patch looks good.
https://github.com/lancaster-university/codal-core/blob/c8547baf94649b20a80457fffb279078e9d32a0d/source/drivers/GhostFAT.cpp#L4
@mmoskal is there anyway we can be more precise with the conditional compilation of the GhostFAT driver?
The board I am working on has not defined
BOOTLOADER_START_ADDR
andUF2_DEFINE_HANDOVER
so functions required by the GhostFAT driver are not being defined by uf2format.h. This breaks compilation:Do you see any issue with guarding the compilation of this driver using the
BOOTLOADER_START_ADDR
define?