Add separate builds for Pico and Pico 2 W to GiHub CI

[lurch]

Many of the pico-examples are RP2350 only, so add a Pico 2 W build job so that these (and the wireless-only examples) get test-built too

[will-v-pi]

Would it be worth using a matrix instead (ie run separate jobs for each board)? This has the advantage of making it easier to add other boards in future and reducing duplication, but the disadvantage that it'll require cloning the SDK separately for each job (so ~30s extra total execution time, plus a bit of overhead as both jobs run sequentially on the same runner).

[lurch]

Feel free to hack my PR about to do whatever you think is best 😀

[lurch]

Cool, now looks much neater than my hacky attempt 🤩

[will-v-pi]

I'll just push a couple more commits to fix up the action, while I'm here

[lurch]

I'll just push a couple more commits to fix up the action, while I'm here

Let me know when you want the green-approval tick 😀

[lurch]

Is it worth doing this matrix thing for the Mac and Windows builds too, or would that just be overkill?
Is it worth trying to do a RISC-V build of the examples also? 🤷

[will-v-pi]

Is it worth doing this matrix thing for the Mac and Windows builds too, or would that just be overkill? Is it worth trying to do a RISC-V build of the examples also? 🤷

I think the Mac and Windows builds are probably fine without, because I think it's very unlikely that any particular example could be broken on one OS but not others (unlike picotool, where it does matrix everything across all OSes because it's easy to break one of them). I think it would also add a lot more overhead, as the dependency installation takes longer on Mac and Windows

Risc-V is a good idea, but that will need @liamfraser to install a Risc-V toolchain on the runner

[lurch]

... or @lloydalexporter ?

[lurch]

With a sideways glance at #643 perhaps it is worth expanding this to build for each of Pico, Pico W, Pico 2 & Pico 2 W ?