Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Boards mtb4 and mtb4c: skin on the 5-th finger finally supported #509

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 4, 2024

Conversation

marcoaccame
Copy link
Contributor

@marcoaccame marcoaccame commented Sep 3, 2024

Description of activities

The work here is a follow up of a previous PR which showed some bugs.
namely, we:

  • fix of CDC offset mapping
  • aligned application versions when macro USE_FIFTH_I2C is defined

The combined effect of these two PRs is:

  • the pin connected to the fifth I2C channel is activated by default
  • the project as is compiles and gives a fully compatible binary file with the previous version reading only 4 I2C channels
  • to use the fifth finger e.g. in ergocub class robots, we need:
    • open the project under ....\boards\mtbX\application\proj (X = 4 or 4c depending on the used board)
    • check the right version of comnpiler is selected (should be so) i.e. 6.19
    • open project options and in the C/C++ tab, define the USE_FIFTH_I2C macro
    • compile and eventually rename the binary file to distinguish it
    • at this point the binary file is ready to be flashed on the desired board, with either a programmer or the FirmwareUpdater tool
    • the correctness of operation can be checked from the version number which is offset by 50 wrt the official one
    • the configuration files are already aligned to this on ergocubSN001 on which the tests were done
      • the configuration may be summarized as:
      • turn off all triangles with cdcoffset = 2200
      • turn on only triangles 0 to 4 with cdcoffset = 0000

@marcoaccame marcoaccame marked this pull request as draft September 3, 2024 14:33
@simeonedussoni
Copy link
Contributor

@marcoaccame I'd mark this as ready for review and merge, what do you think?

@marcoaccame marcoaccame self-assigned this Sep 4, 2024
@marcoaccame marcoaccame marked this pull request as ready for review September 4, 2024 14:04
@marcoaccame
Copy link
Contributor Author

@marcoaccame I'd mark this as ready for review and merge, what do you think?

Hi @simeonedussoni. The PR can be merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants