Why the minimal presence of RP2040 on Platformio?

zapta · January 4, 2024, 4:21am

The RP2040 was launched 3 years ago, has larger following and many off the shelf boards, but is almost no show on platformio. I could find support for only two boards, no support for the SDK API even though wizio had one long time ago, and adoption of the earlephilhower popular core by platformio seems to get push back.

Am I missing something? And if not, what is the slow adoption? It’s a major gap in Platformio’s offering.

Please enlighten me.

wizio · January 4, 2024, 9:37am

Тhe problem is not PlatformIO

zapta · January 4, 2024, 11:55am

What is the problem then? Raspberry corp? Legal? Technical? Something else?

wizio · January 4, 2024, 12:10pm

Raspberry corp & Technical

Raspberry corp: The last I heard from them was: We don’t have a Python specialist to support PlatformIO
Technical: poorly structured SDK, poor documentation, bad support…

You witnessed the discussions we had in the RPI forum

I deleted the port because of bad attitude from raspberry corp and board manufacturers
and i still released this one (unfinished)

wizio · January 4, 2024, 12:13pm

BTW:
I gave the idea for Pico WiFi ( in its current form and implementation )
they ( Raspberry corp ) didn’t even say: Thank you

zapta · January 4, 2024, 8:39pm

Wizio, I used your previous baremetal in the past and it works very well for me, but it was not incorporated with platformio for some reason.

Looking at the new one you linked, it seems to require installation of tools outside of platformio. This takes away the main advantage of platformio, the ability to take a single portable project file platform.ini and setup automatically the tools and environments necessary to build and debug.

I would like to hear from the platfromio staff, what are your plans regarding RP2040? Supporting only two boards, three years after that the popular RP2040 was launched, is not impressive, and between @maxgerhardt and @wizio, there seems to be significant contributions from the community.

wizio · January 4, 2024, 8:54pm

I personally didn’t push for it to be included because the SDK has flaws and the support from RPI was non-existent…
I was just writing it myself, without any support ( except few friends )

zapta · January 6, 2024, 5:33pm

I used your old baremetal framework for a project and it worked well for me, including for the RP2040 PIO state machine programming, and debugging. It was clean, non bloated, and I could refer directly to the API documentation of the RP2040 SDK. I wish Platformio would provide something like that.

github.com

zapta/simple_stepper_motor_analyzer/blob/main/platformio/platformio.ini#L26


      
          ; Upload button (right arrow at the bottom of the screen), will
          ; build the program, upload it to the Pico and restart the 
          ; anaylzer's program. 
          
          [env:raspberry-pi-pico]
          ; Fixing to Wizio 1.08 which is known to be good.
          platform = https://github.com/Wiz-IO/wizio-pico.git#3250e0732cf4c0ff72d4c689317fc7481a34b612
          platform_packages =
          	framework-wizio-pico@https://github.com/Wiz-IO/framework-wizio-pico.git#6f1e42f31a10441688c67588d98ffc9473a2470d
          board = raspberry-pi-pico
          framework = baremetal
          upload_protocol = picoprobe
          debug_tool = picoprobe
          ; Adjust it to the COM port used by the analyzer on your system.
          monitor_port = COM3
          ; This enables Pico's int64 printf.
          board_build.nano = disable
          board_build.pio = src/display/tft_driver.pio
          build_flags = 
          	-O3
          	-Wno-missing-field-initializers

ivankravets · January 6, 2024, 7:00pm

It is a long story, you can read it at Arduino-Pico (Earlephilhower) support, PicoProbe Debugging by maxgerhardt · Pull Request #36 · platformio/platform-raspberrypi · GitHub

Actually, the answer is here

github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi

Comment by ebenupton to Arduino-Pico (Earlephilhower) support, PicoProbe Debugging

platformio:develop ← maxgerhardt:develop

First off, I'd like to express our gratitude to Max for his amazing work. It's e…xciting that people have the opportunity to use a high-quality integration of PlatformIO with Raspberry Pi silicon. We received a proposal from PlatformIO Labs in October 2022. While we absolutely empathise with the challenges of funding open-source projects, we were unable to justify paying the very substantial recurring fees involved. We indicated that we would not be proceeding, and have subsequently made some investments elsewhere, notably in the [Raspberry Pi Pico Windows Installer](https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-setup-windows/). As it has been made clear that this PR will not be accepted in the absence of a commercial agreement between Raspberry Pi and PlatformIO Labs, I think it would be best to close it.

Also, the PlatformIO Labs’ official comment

github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi

Comment by ivankravets to Arduino-Pico (Earlephilhower) support, PicoProbe Debugging

platformio:develop ← maxgerhardt:develop

# Discussion Timeline * Jan 21, 2021 - PlatformIO Labs reached out to Raspber…ry Pi Trading to discuss potential collaboration after an initial community request (https://github.com/platformio/platformio-core/issues/3805). Unfortunately, there was no response from Raspberry Pi Trading following this conversation. * Jan 28, 2021 - The Raspberry Pi community requested support for PlatformIO/Pico-SDK, but the issue was promptly closed by Raspberry Pi Trading (@aallan) as "completed", despite not being fully addressed. This incident sheds light on the level of respect shown by Raspberry Pi Trading towards PlatformIO. * Jun 29, 2022 - @maxgerhardt initiated this PR, and after approval from PlatformIO Labs, multiple Raspberry Pi Trading commercial packages were permitted to ensure the PR passed CI and allow people to experiment with it. * Sep 23, 2022 - After waiting for 20 months without a response, PlatformIO Labs made a second attempt to contact Raspberry Pi Trading. In our communication, we referenced this PR and the negative feedback from the community regarding its non-merger. Raspberry Pi Trading responded, expressing their focus on the IAR/Keil interaction and lack of interest in PlatformIO. We also provided commercial details that needed alignment before Raspberry Pi Trading would start leveraging our ecosystem and initiating any work on this development platform and integration. * Feb 7, 2023 - A third attempt was made, but there was still no response from Raspberry Pi Trading. * Apr 10, 2023 - PlatformIO Labs [informed the community](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1501724359) that they were actively working to resolve this issue. It was clarified that the integration of PlatformIO/RPi carried a demonstrative character. * Apr 15, 2023 - A fourth attempt was made to address the PR with Raspberry Pi Trading. Finally, we received a response from Raspberry Pi Trading stating that they did not plan to pay PlatformIO Labs for utilizing their technology. * May 18, 2023 - Raspberry Pi Trading [attempted to circumvent PlatformIO Labs' licensing model](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1553603305) and reached out to the PlatformIO community seeking assistance in leveraging the PlatformIO ecosystem for free. * May 24, 2023 - Raspberry Pi Trading's CEO publicly confirmed that they received PlatformIO Labs' business proposal but had no intention of paying "substantial recurring fees." PlatformIO Labs promptly reached out to Raspberry Pi Trading, expressing their readiness to discuss a reasonable price that aligns with Raspberry Pi Trading's budget. Additionally, the Raspberry Pi Trading's CEO highlighted their decision to invest in the Raspberry Pi Windows installer instead. * May 27, 2023 - In response to the significant interest from the community regarding this issue, PlatformIO Labs' CEO [provided an explanation](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1565424064) as to why they were unwilling to merge this PR and pay for Raspberry Pi Trading's bills. ------ @Ing-Dom, thanks for the valuable information. Let me share some historical things. We have been active in the embedded systems market since 2014 and have gained valuable insights over the past nine years. I encourage you to read my post on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7070359816442978305/) where I explain our decision to break away from the rules established by certain monopolistic entities several decades ago. Prior to 2019, we attempted to adhere to these rules and added nearly 40 development platforms (integrations with PlatformIO) during that period. We invested significant resources and were surprised by the results. We expected silicon vendors to appreciate our mission and join our revolution. It's worth noting that we did not charge these silicon vendors at the time. However, the more popular PlatformIO became, the more animosity we encountered from engineers working on their proprietary IDEs within these companies. Later, influential individuals from some semiconductor companies shared intriguing information with me. It was the first time I learned about the concept of "vendor lock-in". Consequently, it became clear that "vendor lock-in" is a key strategic approach employed by marketers in the silicon industry. As you now understand, PlatformIO stands in direct opposition to this strategy. The more obstacles silicon vendors create for their customers, the higher the likelihood that customers will remain loyal to their products, even in the presence of cheaper and superior alternative solutions. The second challenge we faced was the lack of technical support from the silicon vendors whose products we supported at that time. Whenever we encountered issues, primarily related to integration or desired improvements such as debugging capabilities, we rarely received satisfactory responses. The typical answer was, "We only provide support for our tools, which are the only ones recommended for our customers". As a result, our integrations were limited, and providing professional support became a challenge. Consequently, despite our substantial investments in the silicon industry during that period, we faced backlash from major players because their engineers and marketers were uncertain about how to handle our growing popularity and the reasons why their customers preferred PlatformIO over their tools, for which they had invested millions. In 2020, we made the decision to exit this room dominated by an oligopoly and no longer adhere to their "lock-in" rules. We conducted an experiment: rather than seeking to support all MCUs and related software, let's focus on having 2-3 official platforms (integrations) with excellent support from the vendors. The results were astonishing. We witnessed a significant increase in the number of PlatformIO users utilizing our platform for commercial projects, which is our primary goal in dismantling this oligopoly. We were astonished by how rapidly our user base grew. You can verify the public statistics for just one of our IDE extensions (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=platformio.platformio-ide) and read the reviews. What we learned is that there's no need to support everything. We don't have to abide by rules that leave developers dissatisfied and hinder our mission. If you want to effect change and become the industry leader, you must ignore the criticisms from major players whose primary focus is their own business interests. Regarding the statistics, by competing against players pursuing a "lock-in" strategy, we managed to add support for 40+ development platforms and build a community of 500,000 users between 2016 and 2019. Conversely, by disregarding the haters and prioritizing partnerships with those who appreciate our ecosystem, we built a sustainable business and grew our user base to 4 million since 2020. Now, you can calculate who has emerged victorious in this battle. It's not just PlatformIO Labs or our detractors, but our partners who have increased their brand visibility and instilled confidence in their customers by offering true freedom of choice.

Nevertheless, we would be thankful if you contact RPi Trading directly via “Get in touch” form Contact us - Raspberry Pi
The more people request PlatformIO support, the faster RPi’s managers will make arrangements.

zapta · January 7, 2024, 2:21am

Thanks @ivankravets. I am still trying to sort out the details. What exactly should we ask from Raspberry ? Do you want them to perform and own the integration with platformio? Do you want them to resolve technical roadblocks that hold back the community with doing this integration? Please clarify so we will know what to ask.

Also, reading your post below suggests that you are seeking payment from Raspberry. Is it so? Do chip vendors need to pay platformio to have their products supported?

github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi

Comment by ivankravets to Arduino-Pico (Earlephilhower) support, PicoProbe Debugging

platformio:develop ← maxgerhardt:develop

# Discussion Timeline * Jan 21, 2021 - PlatformIO Labs reached out to Raspber…ry Pi Trading to discuss potential collaboration after an initial community request (https://github.com/platformio/platformio-core/issues/3805). Unfortunately, there was no response from Raspberry Pi Trading following this conversation. * Jan 28, 2021 - The Raspberry Pi community requested support for PlatformIO/Pico-SDK, but the issue was promptly closed by Raspberry Pi Trading (@aallan) as "completed", despite not being fully addressed. This incident sheds light on the level of respect shown by Raspberry Pi Trading towards PlatformIO. * Jun 29, 2022 - @maxgerhardt initiated this PR, and after approval from PlatformIO Labs, multiple Raspberry Pi Trading commercial packages were permitted to ensure the PR passed CI and allow people to experiment with it. * Sep 23, 2022 - After waiting for 20 months without a response, PlatformIO Labs made a second attempt to contact Raspberry Pi Trading. In our communication, we referenced this PR and the negative feedback from the community regarding its non-merger. Raspberry Pi Trading responded, expressing their focus on the IAR/Keil interaction and lack of interest in PlatformIO. We also provided commercial details that needed alignment before Raspberry Pi Trading would start leveraging our ecosystem and initiating any work on this development platform and integration. * Feb 7, 2023 - A third attempt was made, but there was still no response from Raspberry Pi Trading. * Apr 10, 2023 - PlatformIO Labs [informed the community](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1501724359) that they were actively working to resolve this issue. It was clarified that the integration of PlatformIO/RPi carried a demonstrative character. * Apr 15, 2023 - A fourth attempt was made to address the PR with Raspberry Pi Trading. Finally, we received a response from Raspberry Pi Trading stating that they did not plan to pay PlatformIO Labs for utilizing their technology. * May 18, 2023 - Raspberry Pi Trading [attempted to circumvent PlatformIO Labs' licensing model](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1553603305) and reached out to the PlatformIO community seeking assistance in leveraging the PlatformIO ecosystem for free. * May 24, 2023 - Raspberry Pi Trading's CEO publicly confirmed that they received PlatformIO Labs' business proposal but had no intention of paying "substantial recurring fees." PlatformIO Labs promptly reached out to Raspberry Pi Trading, expressing their readiness to discuss a reasonable price that aligns with Raspberry Pi Trading's budget. Additionally, the Raspberry Pi Trading's CEO highlighted their decision to invest in the Raspberry Pi Windows installer instead. * May 27, 2023 - In response to the significant interest from the community regarding this issue, PlatformIO Labs' CEO [provided an explanation](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1565424064) as to why they were unwilling to merge this PR and pay for Raspberry Pi Trading's bills. ------ @Ing-Dom, thanks for the valuable information. Let me share some historical things. We have been active in the embedded systems market since 2014 and have gained valuable insights over the past nine years. I encourage you to read my post on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7070359816442978305/) where I explain our decision to break away from the rules established by certain monopolistic entities several decades ago. Prior to 2019, we attempted to adhere to these rules and added nearly 40 development platforms (integrations with PlatformIO) during that period. We invested significant resources and were surprised by the results. We expected silicon vendors to appreciate our mission and join our revolution. It's worth noting that we did not charge these silicon vendors at the time. However, the more popular PlatformIO became, the more animosity we encountered from engineers working on their proprietary IDEs within these companies. Later, influential individuals from some semiconductor companies shared intriguing information with me. It was the first time I learned about the concept of "vendor lock-in". Consequently, it became clear that "vendor lock-in" is a key strategic approach employed by marketers in the silicon industry. As you now understand, PlatformIO stands in direct opposition to this strategy. The more obstacles silicon vendors create for their customers, the higher the likelihood that customers will remain loyal to their products, even in the presence of cheaper and superior alternative solutions. The second challenge we faced was the lack of technical support from the silicon vendors whose products we supported at that time. Whenever we encountered issues, primarily related to integration or desired improvements such as debugging capabilities, we rarely received satisfactory responses. The typical answer was, "We only provide support for our tools, which are the only ones recommended for our customers". As a result, our integrations were limited, and providing professional support became a challenge. Consequently, despite our substantial investments in the silicon industry during that period, we faced backlash from major players because their engineers and marketers were uncertain about how to handle our growing popularity and the reasons why their customers preferred PlatformIO over their tools, for which they had invested millions. In 2020, we made the decision to exit this room dominated by an oligopoly and no longer adhere to their "lock-in" rules. We conducted an experiment: rather than seeking to support all MCUs and related software, let's focus on having 2-3 official platforms (integrations) with excellent support from the vendors. The results were astonishing. We witnessed a significant increase in the number of PlatformIO users utilizing our platform for commercial projects, which is our primary goal in dismantling this oligopoly. We were astonished by how rapidly our user base grew. You can verify the public statistics for just one of our IDE extensions (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=platformio.platformio-ide) and read the reviews. What we learned is that there's no need to support everything. We don't have to abide by rules that leave developers dissatisfied and hinder our mission. If you want to effect change and become the industry leader, you must ignore the criticisms from major players whose primary focus is their own business interests. Regarding the statistics, by competing against players pursuing a "lock-in" strategy, we managed to add support for 40+ development platforms and build a community of 500,000 users between 2016 and 2019. Conversely, by disregarding the haters and prioritizing partnerships with those who appreciate our ecosystem, we built a sustainable business and grew our user base to 4 million since 2020. Now, you can calculate who has emerged victorious in this battle. It's not just PlatformIO Labs or our detractors, but our partners who have increased their brand visibility and instilled confidence in their customers by offering true freedom of choice.

EDIT, Just found the link below. It looks like

The Raspberry corp doesn’t care if RP2040 is supported or not by platformio.
Platformio users want RP2040 support and are willing to contribute time to make it happen.
Platformio want to get paid to allow this integration.

Am I missing something?

github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi

Comment by ivankravets to Arduino-Pico (Earlephilhower) support, PicoProbe Debugging

platformio:develop ← maxgerhardt:develop

### PLEASE READ BEFORE => [ 📅 Discussion Timeline 📅](https://github.com/platfor…mio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1580530042) ----- > "I have used PlatformIO for serious academic projects, using platform-atmelsam, and our group has donated to support PlatformIO, which was an amazing solution. It is very important for that quality to be maintained. In order for that to happen, the PIO Labs team cannot be spread too thin and needs to be financially solvent to continue to exist." Thank you, Tim, for sharing your positive experience with PlatformIO and supporting our project through donations. We truly appreciate it, and maintaining the quality of our services is indeed crucial for us. We understand the importance of having a dedicated and financially stable PlatformIO Labs team to ensure ongoing development and support. > "but is actually just one decision within a larger plan that allows you to keep making revenue and keeps the project alive" Indeed, this decision is part of a larger plan aimed at sustaining PlatformIO and generating revenue to ensure the project's continuity. As I mentioned before, our licensing model is not a new concept. The PlatformIO Registry Policy [clearly states](https://registry.platformio.org/pricing) that silicon vendors seeking to leverage the PlatformIO ecosystem and provide commercial integrations (packages) must obtain a technology license from PlatformIO Labs. We are committed to protecting our business and will not tolerate attempts to evade licensing fees. We have various measures in place to safeguard our interests. > "I think it's important for the PIO Labs team to make this division more clear and provide an easy interface for users to use community platforms." We have taken steps to address this concern and provide clarity. The current PR is an example of how we enable the use of community platforms within our ecosystem. We have gone a step further by approving multiple commercial packages to support this PR. Our intention was to facilitate a positive user experience. However, we underestimated the possibility of individuals trying to circumvent our licensing policies, which is unfortunate. We didn't anticipate that in the 21st century, people would still attempt to "crack" or exploit software. Personally, I believe that if I appreciate a software product, I should pay for it. If I don't want to pay, I simply choose not to use it. I respect the efforts that companies invest in their products. Regarding protecting our business in this scenario, we are actively exploring different strategies. It's a complex issue, but we remain committed to finding solutions to safeguard the interests of our ecosystem and the PlatformIO community. We appreciate any suggestions or ideas you may have on this matter. > "RPi would see the popularity and wish to be included as a supported vendor and work with PIO Labs to make that happen." We cannot predict whether Raspberry Pi Trading will choose to collaborate with us or seek to be included as a supported vendor. As outlined in the [Discussion Timeline](https://github.com/platformio/platform-raspberrypi/pull/36#issuecomment-1580530042), we have not pursued aggressive sales tactics or spamming potential customers. We were content for over 20 months without any response from Raspberry Pi Trading. Our decision to contact them again was driven by the negative sentiment expressed by our community regarding this issue. Our hope was to resolve this matter without excessive drama and an influx of comments. At this point, we do not plan to reach out to Raspberry Pi Trading again. If they perceive business value in the PlatformIO ecosystem, they know how to reach us, and we would be more than happy to restart our dialogue. Alternatively, as their customers who utilize their MCUs, you have the option to reach out to them directly and express your interest in using PlatformIO for programming their products. Your feedback as customers can potentially influence their decisions.

ivankravets · January 8, 2024, 6:47pm

This is the main reason.

zapta · January 8, 2024, 7:10pm

Thanks Ivan.

Raspberry not caring is a given but your users care and are willing to contribute time and effort.

The question now is what platformio does with it.

I never realized that platformio is a ‘pay to play’ eco system and only products of paying vendors are included. That’s new to me.

Zapta.

zapta · January 8, 2024, 7:13pm

@wizio, it’s common for large companies not to give credit for ideas. For legal and other reasons. If you believe that your idea triggered that product, you should be proud.

wizio · January 9, 2024, 7:53am

if Ivan didn’t have an Idea for PlatformIO…
The rest is a matter of implementation

wizio · January 9, 2024, 8:23am

The story was something like that:
“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…”
I released the PlatformIO Port a month after the presentation
I wrote and experimented with examples and an idea came to me about WiFi module, I found the chip, SDK, examples … but I couldn’t find a real chip for experiments
The idea was that this chip was used in industrial quantities, it was tested many times, it was cheap, it was “easy” to control
I explained to them all aspects, including that their CORP is friends with the other CORP(WiFi)
the answer was (haughty): This is nonsense, We are currently dealing with more more “surprises”
a year after the first board, I happened to see the implementation of the second one
I tell them: at least say: Thank you…

for what? these are trivial solutions, then, we worked on this board… ( they still remember what I told them )

and so on

and how you expect this corporation to use PlatformIO ( they don’t even have an Arduino ) for the benefit of all fans and customers

zapta · January 10, 2024, 12:09am

Georgi, I understand the frustration but to give you credit for your idea would require them to get approval from management and legal and most likely they would be kicked tem from all the stairs because there is no benefit to the company in admitting, but just a potential legal liability. This is how the business world work, but you your idea is appreciated by me and others.

As for platformio, limiting RP2040 support to two boards and the unpopular mbed RTOS hurts IMO its message of a unified embedded development environment.

wizio · January 10, 2024, 8:02am

You didn’t understand me, it wasn’t about ideas, credits, money … etc
In today’s world, if you don’t present your product properly … it is doomed to fail

Do you know the story of Espressif
If you think about it, you will answer why there is no esp-killer yet

zapta · January 10, 2024, 3:45pm

@wizio, I am not familiar with the history of Espressif you mentioned. Can you explain?

wizio · January 10, 2024, 4:01pm

were like any corp. - hidden, covered, paid…
one idea, and … still no ESP “killer”

never mind … cheers !!!

zapta · January 10, 2024, 5:42pm

In my opinion, ESP32 didn’t get much adoption in the industry because it’s not originated and owned by the free world. There is a natural hesitancy in using networking and IOT technology that is under the control of the CCP.

As for RPI, I think they are relatively small education/maker oriented company and not a general purpose silicon vendor like let’s say ST and this explains for example the style and quality of their documentation.