FADER.SCALE, FADER.CAL.MIN/MAX, FADER.CAL.RESET #198
Merged
Conversation
|
i don't have a 16n, so any additional testing would be great. getting ready to the next TT version release, so this could be added |
|
@tehn it works perfectly with the Sweet Sixteen. I don't have access to an original 16n, it should work fine though. maybe @scanner-darkly ? |
|
i'll give it a test tonight or tomorrow! |
|
sorry, it's been a hectic couple of days, will get to it this afternoon! |
|
sorry - looks like i won't be able to test. my 16n currently has the leader firmware, and i'm having difficulty updating the firmware. in any case, i don't think testing on a different 16n is really necessary - the code isn't doing anything that would be hardware specific, it just reads values the same way |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
What does this PR do?
Adds scaling for
FADERandFBjust like there is forINandPARAMAdmittedly feels a bit naughty putting ii device related functionality along side the onboard hardware stuff in
main.candsrc/state, but I wasn't sure what might be a better approach. Open to suggestions.Provide links to any related discussion on lines.
How should this be manually tested?
A 16n is required. I have the Sweet Sixteen, so someone with the original should test it.
The scaling and calibration behavior should be exactly the same as it is for
INandPARAM.Any background context you want to provide?
If the related Github issues aren't referenced in your commits, please link to them here.
I have,
CHANGELOG.mdmake formaton each commit