Note sure if this should be part of our upcoming 1.25.0 release or not, but it does fix quite a few bugs in pico-sdk.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.54%. Comparing base (71c7c03) to head (13b0237).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #16783   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.54%   98.54%           
=======================================
  Files         169      169           
  Lines       21855    21855           
=======================================
  Hits        21536    21536           
  Misses        319      319           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Code size report:

   bare-arm:    +0 +0.000% 
minimal x86:    +0 +0.000% 
   unix x64:    +0 +0.000% standard
      stm32:    +0 +0.000% PYBV10
     mimxrt:    +0 +0.000% TEENSY40
        rp2:  +112 +0.012% RPI_PICO_W
       samd:    +0 +0.000% ADAFRUIT_ITSYBITSY_M4_EXPRESS
  qemu rv32:    +0 +0.000% VIRT_RV32

Note sure if this should be part of our upcoming 1.25.0 release or not, but it does fix quite a few bugs in pico-sdk.

Judging by some of the bugs it fixes I would be tempted to say yes. There's only so much more Pico WiFi weirdness we can suffer!

Though pragmatically speaking it's probably cutting it a bit close?

I've now done a thorough test of this PR on:

• RPI_PICO
• RPI_PICO_W
• RPI_PICO2 (ARM and RISCV variants)
• RPI_PICO2_W (ARM and RISCV variants)

Running the test suite, native tests, multitests, WLAN and BLE tests. I did not find any regressions in these tests compared to master.