Go ahead Maarten, small systems on NuttX have been neglected lately. I don't know if anyone besides me has tried anything in this direction recently. Small systems require more fine-tuning, but NuttX allows for configuration of most features and stack sizes, so 20kB of RAM should be enough to create working applications, even with USB stack. If for some reason this is impossible now, it is a bug and should be fixed. I have a few STM32 boards with USB on my bench that I want to profile for "small systems" usage but I haven't found the time to do it yet.
czw., 5 mar 2026 o 09:44 Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> napisał(a): > Hey there Maarten, thanks for interest in NuttX! In the best scenario > we would want to bring back alive what is already in the code base :-) > > -- > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 9:24 AM Maarten Zanders > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a couple of old devboards that I want to use in an experiment - > > Olimexino-STM32 - based on STM32F103RB. They are supported in NuttX > > but no documentation - so I wrote an extensive description. > > Unfortunately, none of the provided defconfigs are actually working: > > at each boot you're greeted with a backtrace. The (non-default) stack > > sizes are too small but, when increasing those, other things seem to > > be missing as well. Seems like NuttX evolved but nobody has been using > > these boards since a long time. There is also a lot of clutter in > > the defconfigs. > > > > So I started from scratch for a minimal NSH. Went further and tried to > > get USB composite up and running but after a day of fiddling I have to > > conclude that it's too much to ask from this chip with 20kB of RAM - > > at least without heavy tuning. As I don't need it myself, I won't be > > pursuing this any further. > > > > Now I'm wondering what's the best way to move forward? Is it OK to > > just delete code & configs that are not working anymore? I would then > > provide a clean base to start derived work from (but only a subset of > > current defconfigs). > > Or just mark what's there as "not functional" and move on? > > > > Cheers! > > Maarten >
