Pick up the proper fix from our fork at swaits/lora-rs@fix/sx126x-busy-race: move the ready check from *after* to *before* each SPI op per the Semtech manuals (SX1261/2 §8.3.1, LR1121 UM §3 / §3.5, LR1110 DS §1.2.5) and rename InterfaceVariant::wait_on_busy to wait_until_ready. Firmware side is surgical: since the upstream fix keeps the GenericSx126xInterfaceVariant::new signature at 5 args (no DelayNs threading), there is nothing to change in the four nRF / ESP / RP2040 board files beyond a one-line comment rename (wait_on_busy -> wait_until_ready) in the BUSY-pullup comment on the two nRF boards. Wire in the [patch.crates-io] override pointing at ../../lora-rs/lora-phy, bump the dep spec to the pre-release 3.0.2-alpha that matches the fork, and enable the defmt-03 feature that upstream moved behind a gate between 3.0.1 and the fix branch. TODO.md rewritten to track the new approach: PR body template with verbatim citations from all three Semtech chip manuals (SX1261/2, LR1121 UM, LR1110 DS) plus the SX1276 pin table confirming the family has no BUSY line. No change to firmware behavior beyond picking up the upstream fix, which takes first-TX-after-boot success from ~50% to 20/20 on the Seeed Wio Tracker L1 repro board.
9.8 KiB
Firmware TODO List
lora-phy fix shipped locally; upstream PR pending submission
Branch: swaits/lora-rs @ fix/sx126x-busy-race.
PR not yet opened. Firmware consumes the fix via [patch.crates-io]
pointing at ../../lora-rs/lora-phy; drop the patch line + pre-release
selector once upstream releases.
Hardware-verified on Wio Tracker L1: 20/20 clean-boot TX after the fix (vs ~50% before). Additive fix: adds pre-command BUSY check, keeps existing post-command wait in place.
PR body
Title: phy: pre-command BUSY check per Semtech datasheets
## Problem
While bringing up a downstream project (donglora), I hit a race where TX commands would occasionally fail. Tracked it down to lora-phy not following the BUSY-handshake algorithm Semtech recommends: the host should wait on BUSY *before* issuing each command, not after.
Details: `SpiInterface::{write, write_with_payload, read,
read_with_status}` polls BUSY *after* each SPI op.
On fast MCUs (nRF52840 at 64 MHz, release build) this is racy — `embedded-hal-async`'s `wait_for_low` returns immediately if the pin is already low, and the chip takes up to T_SW ns (SX1261/2 §8.3, Fig. 8-3) to assert BUSY after NSS rises. The host polls inside that pre-assertion window, sees a stale LOW, fires the next command while the chip is still busy, and the chip silently drops it. First `lora.tx()` after a clean boot on Seeed Wio Tracker L1 hangs ~50% of the time.
## Authority
- [SX1261/2 datasheet, DS.SX1261-2.W.APP Rev. 1.2](https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/6/b/5/1/4/SX1262_datasheet.pdf) §8.3.1
"BUSY Control Line": *"it is essential to wait for the BUSY line to
go low before sending an SPI command."*
- [LR1121 User Manual, UM.LR1121.W.APP Rev. 1.2](https://files.waveshare.com/wiki/Core1121/UserManual_LR1121_v1_2.pdf) §3
"Host-Controller Interface": *"it is necessary to check the status
of BUSY prior to sending a command."* (Applies to the LR11xx family
— see also [LR1110 DS Rev. 1.1](https://download.mikroe.com/documents/datasheets/LR1110_datasheet.pdf) §1.2.5.)
- [RadioLib](https://github.com/jgromes/RadioLib/blob/cffd5af/src/Module.cpp)
`Module::SPIwriteStream` / `SPIreadStream` call `waitForBusy()` at
the start of every transaction.
- The [SX1276/77/78/79 datasheet](https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/7/7/3/2/2/SX1276_Datasheet.pdf)
Table 2 exposes no BUSY pin, so
`GenericSx127xInterfaceVariant::wait_on_busy` stays a no-op and the
change is behaviorally identical for SX127x.
## Fix
Replace the post-command BUSY wait with a pre-command BUSY check at the start of each `SpiInterface` / `Lr1110SpiInterface` read/write method. Drop the redundant explicit `wait_on_busy()` calls in `sx126x` (after Calibrate, `ensure_ready` non-sleep arm) and `lr1110::mod` (4 regmem/bootloader sites) — all now covered by the interface pre-wait.
The `is_sleep_command` flag keeps its name but now gates the pre-wait; set `true` only when BUSY is held HIGH by design (the wake-from-sleep GetStatus pulse in `sx126x::ensure_ready`). Two callsite flips as a result: `ensure_ready` Sleep arm `false`→`true`; `set_sleep` `true`→`false`.
No public API signature changes.
## Test
- `cargo clippy -p lora-phy --features defmt-03 -- -D warnings` clean.
- Hardware: Seeed Wio Tracker L1 (nRF52840 + SX1262), 20 consecutive
clean-boot TX cycles → 20/20 (vs ~50% before).
Drop [patch.crates-io] + upgrade esp-hal / esp-rtos + add esp_app_desc!() + bump espflash to v4
Single coordinated change that clears our last remaining dep-graph debt on the ESP boards. All four pieces are coupled, so they land together.
Why
Today Cargo.toml overrides esp-hal, esp-rtos, esp-backtrace, and
esp-println with a git pin to esp-rs/esp-hal#main. The note in that
block explains the historical reason:
REVISIT: esp-rtos 0.2.0 on crates.io pins embassy-executor ^0.9. The esp-rs/esp-hal main branch already supports 0.10. Remove these patches once esp-rtos publishes a release with embassy-executor 0.10 support.
That condition is now met. esp-rtos 0.3.0 is published on crates.io
and depends on embassy-executor ^0.10 and esp-hal ~1.1.0-rc.0 — exactly
what our patches were pulling unofficially. Keeping the patches is no
longer free: it blocks espflash v4, blocks esp-bootloader-esp-idf, and
ties reproducible builds to whatever commit happens to be on
esp-rs/esp-hal#main.
The immediate trigger is espflash v4's required
esp_bootloader_esp_idf::esp_app_desc!() check. save-image refuses any
ESP binary that lacks the IDF app descriptor. The crate that provides the
macro (esp-bootloader-esp-idf) uses the same esp-rom-sys native
library as esp-hal — two copies of the same links = "esp_rom_sys" is
a hard cargo error, so esp-bootloader-esp-idf must come from the same
source as esp-hal. Easiest way to guarantee that: both from crates.io,
no patches.
What changes
-
Cargo.toml— delete the entire[patch.crates-io]block and the precedingREVISIT:comment. Bump the four esp-rs deps to published versions:esp-hal = "1.0"→"1.1.0-rc.0"(pre-release selector — see Gotchas)esp-rtos = "0.2"→"0.3"esp-backtrace = "0.18"→ whatever matches esp-rtos 0.3 (check its deps)esp-println = "0.16"→ same Add a new optional dep + feature wiring foresp-bootloader-esp-idf = "0.5"withdefmtfeature, plus per-board chip feature (esp-bootloader-esp-idf/esp32s3for the S3 boards,esp-bootloader-esp-idf/esp32for LilyGo T-Beam classic).
-
src/main.rs— inside the ESP-family branch of the existingcfg_if!block (around line 51), invoke the macro at module scope:esp_bootloader_esp_idf::esp_app_desc!();Zero runtime cost. Emits ~256 bytes in
.rodata_descwith app metadata (name, version, build date) that the ESP-IDF 2nd-stage bootloader +espflash save-imagelook for. -
mise.toml—"cargo:espflash" = "3"→"4". Drop the deferral comment on that line. -
Possible API drift fixes — esp-hal's pre-release versions occasionally rename or move items. Most likely touch points:
src/board/esp32.rs,src/board/esp32s3.rs- Any board file in
src/board/heltec_*.rs,lilygo_*.rs,elecrow_*.rsthat calls into esp-hal / esp-rtos init Runjust check-allafter steps 1–3 and patch up whatever surfaces. Don't guess — read the actual compiler errors.
How (step by step)
jj new -m "chore(esp): drop esp-hal patches, bump to published versions, add esp_app_desc!()"- Edit
Cargo.toml— delete[patch.crates-io]+REVISIT:comment; bump the four versions; addesp-bootloader-esp-idfdep + feature wiring for each ESP board feature block. - Edit
src/main.rs— addesp_bootloader_esp_idf::esp_app_desc!();to the ESP branch of the top-levelcfg_if!. - Edit
mise.toml— espflash"3"→"4". mise installto pull espflash 4.x.cargo updateto let the resolver pick a consistent tree with the new requirements.just check-all— expect some compilation errors from API drift on ESP boards. Fix them one at a time; consult the official examples inesp-rs/esp-halif in doubt.just build heltec_v3(or any ESP board you have) — verifyespflash save-imagenow succeeds end-to-end producing a valid.bin.- Flash to real hardware if available. The RAK4631 and Wio Tracker L1 (nRF52) boards should be untouched.
Verification
just check-allclean on all 9 boards.just test(host-side protocol tests) still green.- For each ESP board that has been physically validated before (Heltec V3, LilyGo T-Beam units): flash + confirm radio TX works end-to-end via ai-bot or a known peer.
- RAK4631 + Wio Tracker L1 unchanged; re-check via
just checkon both, but no re-flash needed (they don't go through the ESP code path).
Gotchas
- Pre-release version selector:
esp-hal = "1.1.0-rc.0"by itself does NOT match pre-release versions in cargo's default semver rules. Use an exact pre-release like"1.1.0-rc.0","~1.1.0-rc.0"(only1.1.0-rc.0,1.1.0-rc.1, … with any patch), or">=1.1.0-rc.0"."1.1"will NOT resolve to a pre-release. - Two copies of
esp-rom-sys: the root cause of the first failed attempt at this task. If cargo errors with "Only one package in the dependency graph may specify the same links value" foresp_rom_sys, it meansesp-halandesp-bootloader-esp-idfare being pulled from different sources (one crates.io, one git). Either both from crates.io (this task's plan) or both from the same git commit. esp-bootloader-esp-idfchip features: the crate needs exactly one ofesp32 / esp32s3 / esp32c3 / esp32c6 / …to be enabled. Without it, the build panics at itsbuild.rs: "Expected exactly one of the following features to be enabled: esp32, esp32c2, ...". Wire per-board the same way we wireesp-hal/esp32s3etc.- Probe-less repro:
mise installafter bumping espflash to "4" only installs mise's copy. If the user's global~/.cargo/bin/espflashis stale/different, it still wins on PATH. The justfileset shell := ["mise", "exec", "--", "sh", "-c"]prepends mise's paths but does NOT reorder~/.cargo/binahead of them. Eithercargo uninstall espflashglobally, or change the justfile recipes to call$(mise which espflash)explicitly.
Why not now
Tried it alongside the RAK4631 bring-up in April 2026 and bounced off
the esp-rom-sys two-copies problem. Backed out the attempt and left
espflash pinned at v3 + the patches in place so the bring-up commit
stayed atomic and shippable. This task is what's needed to unblock v4
properly, but it deserves its own focused session — not as
"while-I'm-here" scope on a board bring-up.