Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

System: Small refactorings and interrupt setup simplification #1125

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 5, 2022

Conversation

StarGate01
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has been broken out of #1050.

@StarGate01
Copy link
Contributor Author

I deliberately did not fix the pre-existing formatting in src/drivers/PinMap.h, since this would lead to unnecessary merge conflicts with my other PRs. However, the CI task of course still complains.

@FintasticMan
Copy link
Member

I had the same issue, it should be fixed however when #1121 is merged.

bootloader/ota-dfu-python/.gitignore Show resolved Hide resolved
src/systemtask/SystemTask.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Riksu9000 Riksu9000 added this to the 1.10.0 milestone May 12, 2022
@StarGate01
Copy link
Contributor Author

The CI format checks fail due to existing formatting issues in PinMap.h (see above), I am not quite sure why the LVGL simulator CI job fails - it complains of missing font object files? Could this be a transient issue?

@Riksu9000
Copy link
Contributor

The simulator didn't work with the InfiniTime develop branch for a short time while the font generation feature was being added. This has also been resolved now. Rebasing will fix the issue.

As per the coding style, only primary spelling should be used for operators.
This should ensure better readability of the pin setup procedure,
as well as allow the configuration of the hardware button enable pin
and the accelerometer interrupt pin via the pin mapping header.
Copy link
Collaborator

@JF002 JF002 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good for me! Do you want to wait for #1138 #1121 before merging this one?

@StarGate01
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JF002 thanks for the review, however I don't quite see how #1138 relates - did you mean #1121 ? In that case, yes, I can rebase once that one is merged.

@JF002
Copy link
Collaborator

JF002 commented May 23, 2022

@StarGate01 Yes, sorry, I meant #1121. I'll try to keep an eye on it, then!

@Riksu9000 Riksu9000 merged commit 977936e into InfiniTimeOrg:develop Jun 5, 2022
@StarGate01 StarGate01 deleted the small-refactor branch June 25, 2022 17:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants