You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
To answer the question embedded in the code at line 135 in the cpp file, you do not need the delayMicroseconds(1) for a Pico running at 240MHz (PD_SCK is 500nS) in _shiftIn( ) or read( ).
The delay( ) treatment should probably be the same in both places.
It would be useful, however to have an option, as a Teensy 4 and other processors running at > 500MHz are likely to need them in both read( ) and _shiftIn( ).
while (m > 0)
{
// delayMicroSeconds(1) needed for fast processors?digitalWrite(_clockPin, HIGH);
if(_fast_processor)
delayMicroseconds(1);
digitalWrite(_clockPin, LOW);
if(_fast_processor)
delayMicroseconds(1);
m--;
}
BTW, I tested the B input and it seems fine.
A pull request will be forthcoming.
I hope this is useful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the library, it works well!
To answer the question embedded in the code at line 135 in the cpp file, you do not need the delayMicroseconds(1) for a Pico running at 240MHz (PD_SCK is 500nS) in _shiftIn( ) or read( ).
The delay( ) treatment should probably be the same in both places.
It would be useful, however to have an option, as a Teensy 4 and other processors running at > 500MHz are likely to need them in both read( ) and _shiftIn( ).
BTW, I tested the B input and it seems fine.
A pull request will be forthcoming.
I hope this is useful.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: