I think you're right that this should follow the ADC model since the
constraints are similar.
On 28/12/16 19:19, Sterling Hughes wrote:
+1 for PWM support, but as a driver, not HAL.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYNEWT-525
Sterling
+1 for PWM support, but as a driver, not HAL.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYNEWT-525
Sterling
On 28 Dec 2016, at 10:11, David G. Simmons wrote:
+1 on PWM.
dg
On Dec 26, 2016, at 2:14 PM, will sanfilippo
wrote:
I think there was some discussion re: HAL PWM but
+1 on PWM.
dg
> On Dec 26, 2016, at 2:14 PM, will sanfilippo wrote:
>
> I think there was some discussion re: HAL PWM but I cannot quite recall the
> end result. Maybe that this would be a driver instead of a HAL? I agree; PWM
> is very commonly used so having PWM support
+1 - I agree with this thread.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYNEWT-522
On 26 Dec 2016, at 10:26, Kevin Townsend wrote:
Hi Will,
Thanks for the feedback.
1) Unless you are the highest priority task, other tasks can run
which could cause delays, and thus you are not waking up at the
I think there was some discussion re: HAL PWM but I cannot quite recall the end
result. Maybe that this would be a driver instead of a HAL? I agree; PWM is
very commonly used so having PWM support (in either driver or HAL form) should
be added.
> On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Kevin Townsend
Hi Will,
Thanks for the feedback.
1) Unless you are the highest priority task, other tasks can run which could
cause delays, and thus you are not waking up at the desired time.
Yeah, everything is based on the assumption that priority is resolved by
design, and that the scheduling
There is nothing in the OS to delay until a specific OS time or to cause the
scheduler to periodically wake up at a certain rate. There are different ways
to go about doing this and it really depends on what you want. Using a task to
guarantee timing can be tricky. Some things to be aware of
Hi Fabio,
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion.
I didn't think to have separate sync and read tasks. It does add a
decent amount of code when this could be solved with one or two lines
and a built in helper class, but it's a workable and reliable solution
today.
I also tested the code
Hi Kevin,
One pattern I have used for solving the problem would be to create one
extra task simply signaling the first task and looping on the required
timeout. That guarantees to some extent that the first task is always
waken up at a fixed rate. Something on the lines of (disclaimer:
non-tested