This is also something that was noticed by KR on AVR devices. An idea I've been toying with for CI (once I've gotten to know it better) is selecting a couple "watched devices" to monitor the program size of their defconfigs. Then maybe we can plot how NuttX is increasing in size over time as we add patches.
The smallest devices I own are AVR but I really never use them. It would be good to start monitoring NuttX's ability to work on the small stuff again since that's one of the things that makes it so cool. It's probably good to flag the defconfigs that have stopped working, and even better if you could figure out the "breaking point" by bisecting. Then maybe something could be done to shrink the RAM usage/build sizes. Matteo On Thu, Mar 5, 2026, 3:59 AM raiden00pl <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > >
