Adding CodeCell ESP32C3 new 3rd part board

[microbotsio]

Adding CodeCell ESP32C3 new 3rd part board with updating boards.txt and adding the pins_arduino.h in the variant/CodeCell folder.

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Add CodeCell ESP32C3 variant folder": body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Add codecell ESP32C3 variant folder": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Delete variants/CodeCell directory": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Update boards.txt for CodeCell ESP32C3": body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Update pins_arduino.h": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Update variants/CodeCell/pins_arduino.h": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).
⚠️	Please consider squashing your 7 commits (simplifying branch history).

👋 Hello microbotsio, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 631470f

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

@microbotsio PTAL

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

LGTM

[microbotsio]

Can you explain why it the boards test and failed to merge?

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

@microbotsio

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

LGTM

[microbotsio]

Is there anything else we need to do from our side?

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

Is there anything else we need to do from our side?

@microbotsio All good from your side, the PR ready to be merged (marked as pending merge). We will merge it soon :)

[microbotsio]

great thanks!

[microbotsio]

Could you please let me know when the next 3.0.5 release is scheduled? :)

We like our board to show up in Board Manager

[guswynn]

@microbotsio why was SCK mapped to pin 4, when that seems to be used for something else (referencing https://github.com/microbotsio/CodeCell/blob/main/hardware/CodeCell%20Schematics.png)? My understanding is that the ESP32 can make peripherals at will, so this can be overridden when constructing the SPIClass, but if I am reading https://www.espressif.com/sites/default/files/documentation/esp32-c3_datasheet_en.pdf#cd-pins-io-mux-gpio, correctly, the high throughput using the IO MUX would be:

static const uint8_t SS = 5; // this one would need to go through the gpio mux, so it will have a latency hit; the direct pin is 10, as far as i can tell, which is used for something else. It's unclear if this affects the throughput of the spi interface in general.
static const uint8_t MOSI = 2;
static const uint8_t MISO = 7;
static const uint8_t SCK = 6;

[microbotsio]

Thanks for taking interest in this matter! We're checking if we can update this in the coming future

…

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 at 05:10, Gus Wynn ***@***.***> wrote: @microbotsio <https://github.com/microbotsio> why was SCK mapped to pin 4, when that seems to be used for something else (referencing https://github.com/microbotsio/CodeCell/blob/main/hardware/CodeCell%20Schematics.png)? My understanding is that the ESP32 can make peripherals at will, so this can be overridden when constructing the SPIClass, but if I am reading https://www.espressif.com/sites/default/files/documentation/esp32-c3_datasheet_en.pdf#cd-pins-io-mux-gpio, correctly, the high throughput using the IO MUX would be: static const uint8_t SS = 5; // this one would need to go through the gpio mux, so it will have a latency hit; the direct pin is 10, as far as i can tell, which is used for something else. It's unclear if this affects the throughput of the spi interface in general. static const uint8_t MOSI = 2; static const uint8_t MISO = 7; static const uint8_t SCK = 6; — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#10177 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIOADCTKNJF6RJYR3B4X74D2K4WL3AVCNFSM6AAAAABMTSVJ52VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKOJUGQZTOOBWHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>