feat(board): Add Alfredo NoU3

[BotSpace]

Add board support for Alfredo Systems NoU3.

https://www.alfredosys.com/products/alfredo-nou3/

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "feat(board): Add Alfredo NoU3": summary looks too short 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).

	Messages
📖	You might consider squashing your 5 commits (simplifying branch history).

👋 Hello BotSpace, 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.
- Addressing info messages (📖) is strongly recommended; they're less critical but valuable.
- 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 e03fe45

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

Hi @BotSpace, PTAL on my comment.
The boards.txt addition looks fine, but the pins_arduino.h file is missing a lot of pins declarations.

[BotSpace]

I appreciate the swift explanation, I promise I did a lot of research and testing before putting in this PR, but I am in a little over my head here still.

If I'm being honest I would prefer not to define pins this way. to me it seems unnecessary, because the esp32s3 has an internal pin mux, any pin can be any function (except for touch and ADC). If users want to use touch and ADC, they are going to need to look up what those pins are anyway, so A1 or T1 definitions do not help them much.

For RX and TX definitions, I don't understand what those definitions are being used for. My board is intended to be used with JTAG upload mode and Hardware CDC serial debugging on GPIO 19 and 20. I'm afraid if I define RX and TX to those pins, they might get set as UART pins instead of JTAG or OTG pins. There are no other pins intended for serial on the NoU3.

I'm happy to use the SCL and SDA definitions as my board is qwiic compatible on GPIO 34 and 35.

But like serial, there are no pins intended for SPI on my board, I would rather leave that up to the user. I included a random SS pin in my latest commit because that is defiantly needed in CIBoardsTest.ino

If the test fails again I suppose I will just have to add some random serial pins and the rest of the SPI pins.

Any insight on what is strictly necessary would be appreciated!

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

@BotSpace the SPI and I2C pins are needed because of how the core is written. But if you don't want to specify them, you can use -1 instead. By that the default pins will be used. For TX and RX I think it's ok to not declare them. Let's see if CI is would be happy not having the TX and RX. But I agree, as your board is not intended to be used with UART, it should be fine to not define those pins.

I also agree that touch and ADC pins are not necessary to be there, but maybe you can define some pins specifically for your board. As I see you have some DC motor ports, sensors etc. That would be very useful for users to have those pins defined.

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

@BotSpace Will you do any action regarding the pins for DS motors, sensors etc? Also please update your branch with master and resolve conflicts. Thanks

[BotSpace]

Thanks again for the help. I'm not planning on adding more defs for motors/sensors, I think it makes more sense to have that handled by my library for the board. I merged my branch with upstream master, hopefully everything is in order now.