<![CDATA[FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption?]]>I noticed that boot of frozen application on FW 1.18.0 takes longer so I did some comparison. Frozen application is exactly the same in both builds. Property wifi_on_boot is set to False during initial boot after flashing and I verified that it is set to False before the tests were performed.

FW 1.14.0.b1 - execution time ~1.15s, energy consumed during active cycle ~59uWh
0_1528984331557_SW_0.9.6_on_FW_1.14.0.b1.png

FW 1.18.0 - execution time ~1.94s, energy consumed during active cycle ~148uWh
0_1528984405374_SW_0.9.6_on_FW_1.18.0.png

Also peak current during LoRa transmission in the end of active cycle seems to be higher in case of FW 1.18.0 (~175mA vs ~107mA).

There is also suspicious spike in the second half of active cycle reaching 284mA. I believe after this moment the (pre-compiled) Python code gets executed.

What can be causing this behavior? Is WiFi radio really disabled during boot?

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/topic/3377/fw-1-18-0-increased-boot-time-power-consumptionRSS for NodeMon, 13 Apr 2026 08:48:21 GMTThu, 14 Jun 2018 14:00:12 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:03:22 GMT]]>I noticed that boot of frozen application on FW 1.18.0 takes longer so I did some comparison. Frozen application is exactly the same in both builds. Property wifi_on_boot is set to False during initial boot after flashing and I verified that it is set to False before the tests were performed.

FW 1.14.0.b1 - execution time ~1.15s, energy consumed during active cycle ~59uWh
0_1528984331557_SW_0.9.6_on_FW_1.14.0.b1.png

FW 1.18.0 - execution time ~1.94s, energy consumed during active cycle ~148uWh
0_1528984405374_SW_0.9.6_on_FW_1.18.0.png

Also peak current during LoRa transmission in the end of active cycle seems to be higher in case of FW 1.18.0 (~175mA vs ~107mA).

There is also suspicious spike in the second half of active cycle reaching 284mA. I believe after this moment the (pre-compiled) Python code gets executed.

What can be causing this behavior? Is WiFi radio really disabled during boot?

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20291https://forum.pycom.io/post/20291Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:03:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:06:30 GMT]]>I did some more testing using very simple application built as frozen _main.py:

import machine
import pycom
import os

pycom.wifi_on_boot(False)
print(os.uname())
machine.deepsleep()

Following Xtensa compiler was used for both builds:
https://dl.espressif.com/dl/xtensa-esp32-elf-linux64-1.22.0-80-g6c4433a-5.2.0.tar.gz

FW 1.14.0.b1 with last commit 5bb7bc2941919e35953e2dd47e77f5a11eefa82a was built with SDK with last commit be424097224394c29ec927d5f197e061c9ce8800.
0_1529053446263_test_app_FW_1.14.0.b1.png

FW 1.18.0 with last commit 4481a1c283be97640592ea2a0440830e336064de was built with SDK with last commit 4eab4e1b0e47c73b858c6b29d357f3d30a69c074.
0_1529053455543_test_app_FW_1.18.0.png

It's obvious that execution is significantly slower on 1.18.0. It literally takes away years of operation in case of battery powered sensors which are in deep-sleep most of the time.

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20303https://forum.pycom.io/post/20303Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:06:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:35:09 GMT]]>To me it looks like it stays awake longer than before. The rest looks similar.

Did you make any progress with this?

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20723https://forum.pycom.io/post/20723Mon, 09 Jul 2018 12:35:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:04:10 GMT]]>@sympatron
No I did not. Daniel mentioned that it might have something to do with secure boot feature which was introduced in between tested releases.

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20966https://forum.pycom.io/post/20966Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:04:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:32:54 GMT]]>hi @danielm, are you using features like Secure Boot and Flash Encryption, ie. make SECURE=on ?

If you have testing setup prepared, could you take consecutive builds from 1.14 to 1.18? It would help us to spot the problem faster.

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20978https://forum.pycom.io/post/20978Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:32:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:39:45 GMT]]>@catalin
I don't use make SECURE=on.
I have only built 1.14.0 and 1.18.0 with the simple app mentioned above.
During next week I will try to find time to to build releases in between and test them. If you manage to do that sooner it would be even better :)

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/20979https://forum.pycom.io/post/20979Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:39:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to FW 1.18.0 - increased boot time / power consumption? on Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:08:51 GMT]]>@catalin
I finally managed to perform tests of releases between 1.14.0.b1 and 1.18.0.b1.

Otii ARK traces are available here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kIZL0HJHn_dEIPDM_jv6fEhDhb_Ukfqj

Significant execution time increase occured between versions:
1.17.0.b1:
MP: d0dc708a0197d2900a5620648725794a1fb5c8f3
IDF: 3b54cd7473aefdb8b75531a21ce340c4bd2221da
and
1.17.2.b1:
MP: 1bf377b08e2162e8534b6cbe78dcdeeb930f64b8
IDF: 4eab4e1b0e47c73b858c6b29d357f3d30a69c074

]]>https://forum.pycom.io/post/22720https://forum.pycom.io/post/22720Fri, 05 Oct 2018 13:08:51 GMT