Hi Mattyt and xidameng:
I have been looking into this port fairly recently, and it seems to me the way the micropython is built is a little bit strange. The port uses its own (old) arm toolchain, which is embedded into the git repo.
Trying to build with an updated toolchain by removing the references to the embedded toolchain was so far unsuccessful for me; I have got as far as starting to edit the Makefiles for the project to get it to compile.
I have 3 of the full size boards and I also have 5 of the mini boards, and was hoping to get micropython running on the mini board soon-ish.
@mattyt - I see you’re in Melbourne; I’m in Brisbane so maybe being in the same timezone we can easily collaborate (although this is a skunkworks project for me so will be more or less out of work hours).
Over the next week or so I will get the build system fixed so that it will work using the system arm compiler (rather than the embedded one), and also so it will build in the correct directory. I will take cues from the STM32 port, which seems to be arranged well (and also deals with several different board varieties, so the mini- and normal- board versions can be similarly dealt with).
I have forked the micropython github repo; when I have the build system working I’ll push it and create a pull request. Then we can look at how to integrate upstream micropython developments.
The other thing about this port is there are a couple of tools used post-compile to arrange the binary upload. These have source in the repo, which is good; however looking at the source of at least one of them (don’t remember which off the top of my head sorry) it would be much better implemented as a shell script (it only calls some system utilities to arrange binaries IIRC).