Hi David,
Found it. I agree with you that writing a 1 will not do anything. According to
the datasheet is does not mess things up but the use may assume that it can set
the flag which is not the case.
So in order to do it right I should replace this procedure by a clear alarm
function like you suggested.
So on the sample program it would be:
if rtc_alarm_1_flag then
clear_rtc_alarm_1_flag()
I will make the change and keep the older one with the warning it will be
deprecated.
Thanks for the feedback.
Kind regards,
Rob
________________________________
Van: jallib@googlegroups.com <jallib@googlegroups.com> namens Pinhead
<pinhead...@gmail.com>
Verzonden: zaterdag 19 november 2022 12:12
Aan: jallib@googlegroups.com <jallib@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [jallib] Small remarks on rtc_ds3231.jal
Hi,
Yes, indeed, we do not use the same version. In your datasheet, it is on
page 14.
See screenshot attached.
Enjoy your day
David
Le 19 nov. 2022, à 11:50, Rob CJ
<rob...@hotmail.com<mailto:rob...@hotmail.com>> a écrit:
Hi David,
Well spotted, the cosmetic issue. Will fix that.
I do not understand the other issue since in page 15 of my datasheet I cannot
find what you mention, see attached datasheet that I used.
Next to that I tested the alarm functions and it seems to work correctly.
Can you send me the datasheet you are refering to?
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Rob
________________________________
Van: jallib@googlegroups.com <jallib@googlegroups.com> namens
pinhe...@gmail.com <pinhead...@gmail.com>
Verzonden: zaterdag 19 november 2022 01:43
Aan: jallib <jallib@googlegroups.com>
Onderwerp: [jallib] Small remarks on rtc_ds3231.jal
Hi,
As I am using this library right now, I have small remarks:
- Cosmetic: In the comments on lines 254 and 259, reference is made to the
SSD1306
- Functionality leading to mistakes: the logic in the "procedure
rtc_alarm_2_flag'put(bit in set_flag)" and "procedure rtc_alarm_1_flag'put(bit
in set_flag)" allows to set the bit to 1. But on page 15 of the datasheet, it
is stated that this bit may only be written to 0. Allowing the user to write
it to 1 may lead to mistakes, since the user may believe it actually worked,
when it didn't. My suggestion: Deprecate with a WARN at compile time those 2
procedures and replace them with a "procedure clear_rtc_alarm_2_flag'put"(and
the same for alarm 1)
Just my 2c, hoping to help, and not to critisize the good work done !
Enjoy your week-end.
David.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
jallib+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:jallib+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/0ff7bd5b-3f82-4f64-9db1-fde6b7b4ac6b%40gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/0ff7bd5b-3f82-4f64-9db1-fde6b7b4ac6b%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to jallib+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/GVXP195MB1637C8E697DBB65E36FBB9ADE6089%40GVXP195MB1637.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
