ESP8266 Community Forum

- Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:42 pm #13798 Hi,

not sure if this is the right place to post this.
I am trying to run the OTA firmware update but got stuck at Flashing OTA User App...
Any idea what could be going wrong? IP address is default, SoftAP 192.168.4.1, and STA IP is 192.168.0.107.
Webpage loads correctly after serial flashing. I am using SDK 0.9.5 by the way.

Thks in advance for any help.

- Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:04 am #13836

not sure if this is the right place to post this.

This indeed is not the right place to post this.

- Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:27 am #14681 Okay, I'm reading up on the bootloader thing now. I'm concentrating on the 1.0.x SDK at the moment, would be good to get that working first. As far as I have tried, the gen_appimage.py is used to make the two monolithic flash images for the two different UI locations. The weird thing is: the flash images always seem to be 255'ish K with me, leaving no room for the espfs in my 512K flash. Is that a standard feature of the thing?

I'm also thinking of another approach that lets us update everything from flash but still leaves more room for the espfs. This all assumes we can modify the boot.bin into submission and/or write our own.

My idea would be to make a stripped-down version of esphttpd for user1 that can only serve up a page requesting a flash file and flash that. No more, no less: no espfs, no template engine, just two CGIs. The bootloader would be told to normally boot into user2, the real application program. In the user2 program, there's a function (maybe password-protected if you so wish) that basically lets the thing go to firmware update mode, which is actually just a reboot into the user1 program. The user1 program can then safely update user2 and the espfs.

The advantage here is that we don't need to keep two copies of the program itself in flash, allowing us to make the program bigger.

What would you think about this idea?

- Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:44 am #14717 Lots of new ESP versions pop up with higher flash sizes now days for almost the same low cost. My take is those will eventually replace the current ones. Perhaps spending resources on saving a byte might not be as wise as it might sound eventually ? Just my .02 not actually suggesting anything.
-D