machine.Pin constructor (make) + init #21
Conversation
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
jaenrig-ifx
force-pushed
the
machine-pin-make-hardcode-pins
branch
from
0bfb772 to
cf20f87
Compare
jaenrig-ifx
requested review from
LinjingZhang,
NikhitaR-IFX and
ramya-subramanyam
Signed-off-by: jaenrig-ifx <[email protected]>
jaenrig-ifx
changed the title
|
|
||
| pin1_name = "P16_0" | ||
|
|
||
| pin_out = Pin(pin1_name, mode=Pin.OUT, value=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So the other tests will be added after pin generations is it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will start the test with 2 hardcoded pins, and add the rest of the machine.Pin() tests. With the creation of the pin class I will understand all the machine_pin_obj requirements, and from there I can handle the pin generation from make-pins.py.
Then there are the alternative functions, which some ports handle them from the Pin class... In PSOC6 the usage of the HAL prevented us from doing this. But in this case, I am not sure if we can/should stick to that approach.
|
|
||
| mp_arg_check_num(n_args, n_kw, 1, 6, true); | ||
|
|
||
| const machine_pin_obj_t *self = &machine_pin_p16_0; // TODO: This will be change by the proper pin allocation/find function machine_pin_finf(args[0]); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we instead have a LUT for this pin so that we can extend it for other tests till we have pins generated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let´s discuss in the pairing how I should do that :)
machine.Pinclass tomachinemodulemachine.Pin()mode,pullandvalueconfigurations