How do I resolve conflicts Between MicroPython’s FATFS and Zephyr’s FATFS in nRF Connect SDK 2.9.0? #16885
Replies: 1 comment 3 replies
-
|
Do you use FATFS? If not, best approach is probably to configure it out. At minimum either on Zephyr or on MicroPython side, or on both. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The current plan is to use FATFS, so getting it to work would be perfect. If all things fail, I might have to reconsider. Since the users should also be able to mount the SD card onto their computers to access the data written, LittleFS might not be the best choice and I would prefer FATFS |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Do you talk about the file system for flash for for an SD card? LittleFS is not made for SD cards. For SD cards, FATFS is the choice. MicroPyhton allow to use LFS for flash and FATFS foir SD cards. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I was talking about the file system for the SD card. I wasn’t aware that LFS is not made for SD cards, so that is definitely not an option. Enabling SD card support would be a pretty important feature IMO, so there seems to be no other way than finding a solution for FATFS. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello everyone,
I’m currently integrating MicroPython into my Zephyr-based firmware using the nRF Connect SDK 2.9.0. I’ve encountered a build issue due to duplicate definitions arising from the FATFS implementation. Specifically, there are two different sets of FATFS source files:
Located in
micropython/lib/oofatfs/ff.cand its corresponding header ff.h.Found in
modules/fs/fatfs/ff.c(and the corresponding header) provided by Zephyr.These two implementations both provide functions such as
f_mount(), leading to duplicate symbol errors when I try to build my firmware.The firmware is relatively complex, so I don't want to break something by using one implementation or the other. Is there a recommended method for resolving these duplicate symbol conflicts? Alternatively, is there a way to isolate one implementation (for example, building MicroPython as a separate static library or “namespacing” its FATFS functions) so that both can coexist without conflict?
Thanks in advance for any help or advice!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions