Eeprom fixes - #137
Conversation
…ce updated spectrum
…uld have caused dead locks
mzieg
left a comment
mzieg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi Trent, perhaps some of these EEPROM temperature fields should have been defined as uint8, but I think we need to consistently treat them as int8 (-128, +127).
|
|
||
| if (format >= 18) | ||
| { | ||
| maxLaserTempDegC = ParseData.toUInt8(pages[3], 11); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think ENG-0034 has this defined as an int8, not uint8.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think ENG-0034 has this as an int8, not uint8.
| } | ||
| if (format >= 18) | ||
| { | ||
| if (!ParseData.writeByte(maxLaserTempDegC, pages[3], 11)) return false; |
I will convert the fields mentioned into sbytes |
… to differentiate returned failed read vs. unimplemented timeout
this should now be good to go @mzieg ; made another small change that I rolled in |
2 participants
No description provided.