From: Ken S. <ksa...@in...> - 2012-11-29 06:35:05
|
On 26/11/12 21:31, Fergus Noble wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering how well tested the convenience functions (and header) > are, I want to update my code to use the official locm3 branch but my > application uses DMA very extensively and debugging it the first time > was a huge pita. My header is now quite thoroughly tested (at least in > the areas I'm using) and I'm nervous about switching over and breaking > things :) Fergus, as you are confident about the testing done on your header I suspect you are well ahead. I would suggest that your header be used instead and that the convenience functions be updated. I confess to missing the F2 header file which would have saved me a bit of work. The F2 header also appears to have the same SFCR address error as the one you fixed in your F4 header, so that also needs updating. If you're happy I'll take this on tonight and put up the changes for merging. cheers, Ken > > Also, Ken's version diverges from the API that was used in the F2 > header file (and that my F4 header uses). There really isn't much > difference between the F2 and F4 DMA peripheral so if this new version > is the way people want it I suggest that the F2 headers get updated to > follow the same conventions. I think we should try and avoid > introducing arbitrary differences in API between similar peripherals > on different chips unless they reflect an actual difference in > functionality. > > Thanks, > Fergus > |