Can you access the RP2 files system from Windows 10 as a USB Flash Drive?

[RWLTOK]

When I received my PICO, it was preloaded with Circuit Python. With Circuit Python I could see the contents of the file system on the PICO from Windows 10. After loading Micropython 1.16, I don't see the file system contents any more. That is why I love my PyBoard. Is this a feature of Micropython for RP2 or is there something wrong with my system? I looked through mpconfigureport.h and I did not see anything to enable for flash drive functionality.

Thanks

Rich

PS: There is a line in the rp2/boards/PICO/mpconfigboard.h that reads:

Code: Select all

#define MICROPY_HW_FLASH_STORAGE_BYTES          (1408 * 1024)

[JumpZero]

This normal, that's a difference between MicroPython and CircuitPython
here you can read about differences between the two, including this:

CircuitPython was designed to have a USB disk drive that appears when you plug in the board.

[RWLTOK]

Thanks for pointing that out. I would really miss uasyncio going to circuit python.

[pythoncoder]

This is under review and is a topic of some debate. Some advocate providing this facility. In my opinion it is the spawn of the Devil (on Pyboards too) for this reason.

[mattyt]

This normal, that's a difference between MicroPython and CircuitPython

That's not quite right, just to clarify; CircuitPython requires USB mass storage support (at least, until very recently where they're relaxing that for some ports where BLE can be used to interact with the filesystem). MicroPython can use USB mass storage on ports that support it - but it may be disabled. Many stm32 boards support USB mass storage for example.

MicroPython supports the concept of a virtual filesystem of which there are currently two implementations: FatFS and LittleFS. FatFS is the venerable Microsoft filesystem - it's not particularly robust but it is required for USB mass storage. LittleFS was designed for embedded use; it's small, supports wear levelling and is robust - particularly in the event of unexpected power failures. So there's a tradeoff; the improved resilience of LittleFS or the convenience of FatFS since, with it, USB mass storage becomes available.

I believe MicroPython made the choice to go with LittleFS by default for the RP2 port since Thonny had been selected as the IDE (it doesn't need mass storage) and using LittleFS meant it was less likely beginners would have issues with corrupt filesystems.

Since TinyUSB is used for the RP2 port to provide USB features - just like CircuitPython - mass storage with FatFS should be possible. It's not yet implemented but all the components are there...

[JumpZero]

Thank you very much @mattyt for taking the time to provide these details. It is indeed very interesting to understand the pros and cons of LittleFS vs Fat.
And also TinyUSB (I didn' know it) is a great project.
What would we do without everyone from the Open Source who works for us!
And as @pythoncoder says: ruggedness is a better choice. So: LittleFS
Thanks again