On 4 January 2017 at 11:48, Arend Van Spriel
wrote:
> On 4-1-2017 11:40, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> On 4 January 2017 at 10:39, Arend Van Spriel
>> wrote:
>>> On 3-1-2017 17:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
From: Rafał Miłecki
Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable b
On 4-1-2017 11:40, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> On 4 January 2017 at 10:39, Arend Van Spriel
> wrote:
>> On 3-1-2017 17:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>> From: Rafał Miłecki
>>>
>>> Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
>>> default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict
On 4 January 2017 at 10:39, Arend Van Spriel
wrote:
> On 3-1-2017 17:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki
>>
>> Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
>> default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
>> result in using that initial index
On 3-1-2017 17:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki
>
> Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
> default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
> result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. This
> never happened so f
From: Rafał Miłecki
Our code was assigning number of channels to the index variable by
default. If firmware reported channel we didn't predict this would
result in using that initial index value and writing out of array. This
never happened so far (we got a complete list of supported channels) bu
