fix(esp_ulp): Add support for multiple ULP program embedding without name collision (IDFGH-14151)

[X-Ryl669]

Description

Currently, the ULP's auto variable name embedding script has multiple issues:

1. It names variable in the global namespace (in extern "C" mode) so multiple ULP program using the same variable name results in impossible-to-solve access and memory corruption (see linked issue)
2. It doesn't support generating arrays (so one has to trick/hack around a declared variable, rendering the whole process useless)
3. It create a useless linker script in the build process
4. It creates a lots of useless symbols declaration (like all functions and global included objects), which, if used in the HP core, crashes the HP core

This PR fixes it:

1. It changes from using nm cross compilation tool to readelf tool for extracting symbols. This allows keeping the symbol's scope (global or local), the symbol type (object or function or ...) and the symbol size (for arrays).
2. It only extract the meaningful symbols and doesn't pollute the global scope with unusable symbols like ulp_lp_core_lp_ana_peri_intr_handler
3. It allows to specify the prefix to use for generating the ULP's variable name (defaults to the current ulp_ prefix, but now, you can specify it)
4. You can use C++ prefix too (like a namespace ULPmain:: and it'll mangle the name and work without extern "C"): perfect to move the shorter variables in their own namespace and avoid collisions without dumb long names
5. It removes the generated linker script (useless to specify the symbol location, it can be done in the header file directly).
6. It add support for array uint32_t myVariable[32] is correctly exported so can be used like a native variable in HP core, no more hacky ((uint32_t*)myVariable)[0] like specified in the documentation.

From a user perspective, nothing changes (the useless symbol will be removed, but they couldn't be used anyway previously).
However, she can now replace the line:

set(ulp_app_name ulp_${COMPONENT_NAME})
set(ulp_sources "ulp/ulp_main.c")
set(ulp_exp_dep_srcs ${srcs})

ulp_embed_binary(${ulp_app_name} "${ulp_sources}" "${ulp_exp_dep_srcs}")

set(ulp_app_name2 ulp_ds_cal)
set(ulp_sources2 "ulp/ulp_ds_cal.c")

ulp_embed_binary_prefix(${ulp_app_name2} "${ulp_sources2}" "${ulp_exp_dep_srcs}")

to this:

set(ulp_app_name ulp_${COMPONENT_NAME})
set(ulp_sources "ulp/ulp_main.c")
set(ulp_exp_dep_srcs ${srcs})

ulp_embed_binary_prefix(${ulp_app_name} "ULPmain::" "${ulp_sources}" "${ulp_exp_dep_srcs}")

set(ulp_app_name2 ulp_ds_cal)
set(ulp_sources2 "ulp/ulp_ds_cal.c")

ulp_embed_binary_prefix(${ulp_app_name2} "ULPds_cal::" "${ulp_sources2}" "${ulp_exp_dep_srcs}")

And build collision-free and working multiple ULP binary.

Related

Fix #14945 and other issues too related to misusage of ULP symbols in HP core.

Testing

I've tested on my system with ESP32C6. I haven't tested with other CPU types. However, the tools used in this PR are common cross compilation tools, it shouldn't depend on the CPU architecture.

Checklist

Before submitting a Pull Request, please ensure the following:

• [*] 🚨 This PR does not introduce breaking changes.
• All CI checks (GH Actions) pass.
• Documentation is updated as needed.
• Tests are updated or added as necessary.
• Code is well-commented, especially in complex areas.
• Git history is clean — commits are squashed to the minimum necessary.

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "(docs) Improve documentation for ulp_embed_binary changes": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "fix(esp_ulp): Add support for multiple ULP program embedding without name collision": body must have leading blank line 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).
⚠️	The source branch "multiULP" incorrect format: contains uppercase letters. This can cause troubles on case-insensitive file systems (macOS). Please rename your branch.

👋 Hello X-Ryl669, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for 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.
- 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 via this public GitHub repository.

This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository

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 synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository 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.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 3903f11

[KonstantinKondrashov]

Orignal #14954