Refactored commit - VL53L4CX default settings #564
Conversation
|
@brentru ready for review, release blocked until partition size resolved on some build targets as discussed yesterday |
tyeth
force-pushed
the
add-VL53L4CX
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e0abaf8
to
213fcef
Compare
|
@brentru ready for review, tested locally, will retest on staging before merge |
|
Re-ready for review @brentru |
| */ | ||
| /*******************************************************************************/ | ||
| void awaitDataReady(int &status, uint8_t &NewDataReady) { | ||
| for (uint8_t retries = 0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we return NAN, and return immediately vs retrying three times? These drivers are supposed to be very small and fast, like an interrupt routine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NaN doesn't mean data not ready, especially with these ToF sensors. It's meant to mean nothing in range (but a clear signal response).
I kind of feel like we should return false and retry in the next polling loop, but the retry logic in main polling loop is not smart (endlessly retries sensors returning false).
Maybe I should I rejig the polling logic in the main file to retry falses a couple of times instead (per poll period) before marking their next poll period in the future regardless (like a good read would after first value returned)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe restrict the polling logic to a limited # of retries?
| if (status != VL53L4CX_ERROR_NONE) { | ||
| WS_DEBUG_PRINT( | ||
| "VL53L4CX Error clearing interrupt and starting measurement: "); | ||
| { USBSerial.println(status); }; |
No description provided.