Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

refactor(rmt): refactored RMT loopback example#11221

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Merged
me-no-dev merged 2 commits intomasterfromrmt_loopback_refactoring
Apr 9, 2025

Conversation

SuGlider
Copy link
Collaborator

@SuGliderSuGlider commentedApr 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Description of Change

The way RMT loopback example was done, it had a sync problem that caused the result to do not match.
Low level signal was sent first and then the high level, therefore, it would only detect the second signal (high) after a delay in nanoseconds. This delay would cause the received signal to be shifted by one RMT symbol.

Output of the original example:

Got 30 RMT symbols000e8001=8001000e 000d8001=8002000d 000b8002=8003000c 000a8004=8004000b 00098005=8005000a 00088006=80060009 00078007=80070008 00068008=80080007

With this refactoring/fix, RMT symbols start with High Level and the output matches the received RMT symbols.
This PR makes the example easier for understanding as well as the RMT symbol will better match.

Got 32 RMT symbols0001800e=0001800e 0002800d=0002800d 0003800c=0003800c 0004800b=0004800b 0005800a=0005800a 00068009=00068009 00078008=00078008 00088007=00088007

Tests scenarios

Tested with ESP32, ESP32-C3 and ESP32-S3 using the provided example.

Related links

Related to#11200

@SuGliderSuGlider added the Type: ExampleIssue is related to specific example. labelApr 6, 2025
@SuGliderSuGlider added this to the3.2.1 milestoneApr 6, 2025
@SuGliderSuGlider self-assigned thisApr 6, 2025
@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actionsbot commentedApr 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Messages
📖🎉 Good Job! All checks are passing!

👋Hello SuGlider, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


📘 Please review the project'sContributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

🖊️ Please also make sure you haveread and signed theContributor License Agreement for this project.

Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by thePR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with eachpush event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger isnot a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- To manuallyretry these Danger checks, please navigate to theActions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫dangerJS against940ecfb

@SuGliderSuGlider added the Status: Review neededIssue or PR is awaiting review labelApr 6, 2025
@SuGliderSuGlider requested a review fromCopilotApril 6, 2025 22:42
Copy link
Contributor

@CopilotCopilotAI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.

Files not reviewed (1)
  • libraries/ESP32/examples/RMT/RMTLoopback/RMTLoopback.ino: Language not supported

@github-actionsGitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actionsbot commentedApr 6, 2025
edited
Loading

Memory usage test (comparing PR against master branch)

The table below shows the summary of memory usage change (decrease - increase) in bytes and percentage for each target.

MemoryFLASH [bytes]FLASH [%]RAM [bytes]RAM [%]
TargetDECINCDECINCDECINCDECINC
ESP32P40⚠️ +5580.00⚠️ +0.16000.000.00
ESP32S30⚠️ +4360.00⚠️ +0.13000.000.00
ESP32S20⚠️ +3600.00⚠️ +0.13000.000.00
ESP32C30⚠️ +5360.00⚠️ +0.18000.000.00
ESP32C60⚠️ +5560.00⚠️ +0.21000.000.00
ESP32H20⚠️ +5860.00⚠️ +0.19000.000.00
ESP320⚠️ +3800.00⚠️ +0.12000.000.00
Click to expand the detailed deltas report [usage change in BYTES]
TargetESP32P4ESP32S3ESP32S2ESP32C3ESP32C6ESP32H2ESP32
ExampleFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAMFLASHRAM
libraries/ESP32/examples/RMT/RMTLoopback⚠️ +5580⚠️ +4360⚠️ +3600⚠️ +5360⚠️ +5560⚠️ +5860⚠️ +3800

Copy link
Collaborator

@lucasssvazlucasssvaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@lucasssvazlucasssvaz changed the titlefeat(rmt): refactored RMT loopback examplerefactor(rmt): refactored RMT loopback exampleApr 8, 2025
@me-no-devme-no-dev added Status: Pending MergePull Request is ready to be merged and removed Status: Review neededIssue or PR is awaiting review labelsApr 9, 2025
@me-no-devme-no-dev merged commit2647cbb intomasterApr 9, 2025
21 checks passed
@me-no-devme-no-dev deleted the rmt_loopback_refactoring branchApril 9, 2025 08:56
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Reviewers

Copilot code reviewCopilotCopilot left review comments

@me-no-devme-no-devme-no-dev approved these changes

@lucasssvazlucasssvazlucasssvaz approved these changes

@P-R-O-C-H-YP-R-O-C-H-YAwaiting requested review from P-R-O-C-H-Y

Assignees

@SuGliderSuGlider

Labels
Status: Pending MergePull Request is ready to be mergedType: ExampleIssue is related to specific example.
Projects
Milestone
3.2.1
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants
@SuGlider@me-no-dev@lucasssvaz

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp