fix minor bug in add_repeating_timer_us, and add some comments #621
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
bazel
bluetooth
board settings
boot_stage2
bug
build
c++
can't reproduce
clang
clib-interface
cmsis
code cleanliness
code size
compiler version issues
cyw43_driver
debug
discussion
documentation
duplicate
dynamic_clock
elf2uf2
enhancement
errata
filesystem
flash layout
floating point
FreeRTOS
hardware_adc
hardware_claim
hardware_clocks
hardware_dma
hardware_exception
hardware_flash
hardware_gpio
hardware_i2c
hardware_irq
hardware_pio
hardware_pwm
hardware_rcp
hardware_rtc
hardware_spi
hardware_sync
hardware_uart
hardware_vreg
hardware_watchdog
hardware_xosc
help wanted
host
IAR
installation
invalid
linker scripts
lto
lwip
mbedtls
missing API
needs reporter detail
networking
newlib
newlib-multicore
non-c
non-cmake
non-gcc
openocd
orphan PR
OS integration
pico_async_context
pico_base
pico_binary_info
pico_flash
picolibc
pico_lwip
pico_malloc
pico_multicore
pico_printf
pico_runtime
pico_stdio
pico_stdio_usb
pico_sync
pico_time
pico_util
pioasm
port
question
review
review2
rtos interop
runtime init
static library
svd
test
tinyusb
vscode
wifi integration
wontfix
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
gh-raspberrypi/pico-sdk!621
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "issue_614"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
fixes #614
@ -416,9 +416,12 @@ void alarm_pool_destroy(alarm_pool_t *pool);* @param time the timestamp when (after which) the callback should firePerhaps add a comma after "returning"? The first time I read it, I thought it meant that "if the timestamp happens before or during this method call" was what was being returned, IYSWIM.
@ -219,18 +219,26 @@ alarm_id_t alarm_pool_add_alarm_at(alarm_pool_t *pool, absolute_time_t time, alado {Repeated "otherwise"
@ -219,18 +219,26 @@ alarm_id_t alarm_pool_add_alarm_at(alarm_pool_t *pool, absolute_time_t time, alado {"this is does mean" ??
@ -302,7 +314,9 @@ bool alarm_pool_add_repeating_timer_us(alarm_pool_t *pool, int64_t delay_us, repout->user_data = user_data;is -> if ?
@ -416,9 +416,12 @@ void alarm_pool_destroy(alarm_pool_t *pool);* @param time the timestamp when (after which) the callback should firereordered because the comma didn't seem right
@ -462,9 +468,12 @@ static inline alarm_id_t alarm_pool_add_alarm_in_us(alarm_pool_t *pool, uint64_t* @param ms the delay (from now) in milliseconds when (after which) the callback should firenitpick: seems to be an accidental unindent here?
@ -462,9 +468,12 @@ static inline alarm_id_t alarm_pool_add_alarm_in_us(alarm_pool_t *pool, uint64_t* @param ms the delay (from now) in milliseconds when (after which) the callback should fireI see that you've got two variations of this comment - one that uses "timestamp" and one that uses "timeout". Was this function (
alarm_pool_add_alarm_in_ms) supposed to use the "timeout" variant? (I see thatadd_alarm_in_msuses the "timeout" variant, so presumably at least one of them needs changing? 🤷 )@ -462,9 +468,12 @@ static inline alarm_id_t alarm_pool_add_alarm_in_us(alarm_pool_t *pool, uint64_t* @param ms the delay (from now) in milliseconds when (after which) the callback should fireactually i made it more confusing they should all say "alarm time"
I can't comment on the code, but the comments LGTM now 👍
LGTM. Nice comments!