use ack_payloads_enabled to full potential #2
+190
−160
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
addresses nRF24#654
Also, I found an error in the comparison statement used in
setAutoAck()about the pipe number passed to thepipeparameter. There is no pipe 6 (only 0-5). While the datasheet says "only 0s allowed", the bit in the EN_AA register is marked read/write. The fact that this hasn't caused an error with the nRF24L01 justifies nRF24#641 because if you assert bit 6 in the EN_AA, then a SPI read transaction will return 1 in bit position 6 of the EN_AA register (tested this with my circuitpython library's SPI functions when I developed per pipe control of auto-ack).about startListening() in reUseTx() docs
I made some doc changes to
reUseTx()aboutstartListening()currently flushing the TX FIFO in nRF24#656. With this PR,startListening()no longer flushes the TX FIFO (see Additional context in nRF24#654). So the doc changes in nRF24#656 should reflect this PR as well, but this branch is not based on the branch used for nRF24#656.