ESP8266 Developer Zone The Official ESP8266 Forum 2017-11-24T14:45:38+08:00 https://bbs.espressif.com:443/feed.php?f=66&t=8470 2017-11-24T14:45:38+08:00 2017-11-24T14:45:38+08:00 https://bbs.espressif.com:443/viewtopic.php?t=8470&p=18316#p18316 <![CDATA[Re: rf cal sector - freq trace enable 0 on SDK 2.1.0]]>
just use system_phy_freq_trace_enable(1)

Statistics: Posted by faeton — Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:45 pm


]]>
2017-11-23T21:10:03+08:00 2017-11-23T21:10:03+08:00 https://bbs.espressif.com:443/viewtopic.php?t=8470&p=18301#p18301 <![CDATA[rf cal sector - freq trace enable 0 on SDK 2.1.0]]>
I have some issue with 2.1.0(deb1901) and esp_init_data_default.bin

same esp_init_data_default.bin on SDK 2.0.0(656edbf):
2nd boot version : 1.6
SPI Speed : 40MHz
SPI Mode : DIO
SPI Flash Size & Map: 32Mbit(1024KB+1024KB)
jump to run user1 @ 1000

rf cal sector: 1019
rf[112] : 03
rf[113] : 00
rf[114] : 01
w_flash

SDK ver: 2.0.0(656edbf) compiled @ Jul 19 2016 17:58:40
phy ver: 1055, pp ver: 10.2

but on:
2nd boot version : 1.6
SPI Speed : 40MHz
SPI Mode : DIO
SPI Flash Size & Map: 32Mbit(1024KB+1024KB)
jump to run user1 @ 1000

rf cal sector: 1019
freq trace enable 0
rf[112] : 00

rf[113] : 00
rf[114] : 01
w_flash

SDK ver: 2.1.0(deb1901) compiled @ Oct 23 2017 17:58:03
phy ver: 1136_0, pp ver: 10.2

my esp_init_data_default.bin
{
0x05, 0x00, 0x04, 0x02, 0x05, 0x05, 0x05, 0x02, 0x05, 0x00, 0x04, 0x05,
0x05, 0x04, 0x05, 0x05, 0x04, 0xFE, 0xFD, 0xFF, 0xF0, 0xF0, 0xF0, 0xE0,
0xE0, 0xE0, 0xE1, 0x0A, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xF8, 0x00, 0xF8, 0xF8, 0x52, 0x4E,
0x4A, 0x44, 0x40, 0x38, 0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05,
0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x02, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0xE1, 0x0A, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x01, 0x93, 0x43, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x03, 0x00, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
};
placed at 0x3FC000

Feature or bug?
Any idea?

Statistics: Posted by faeton — Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:10 pm


]]>