fwcommon

Clone Tools
  • last updated a few minutes ago
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
I think we should add the new THd temperature sensor now. I know it's currently using TRo connection (and so we don't have a TRo), but we should handle that with build switch (THd reads from TRo ch...

I think we should add the new THd temperature sensor now. I know it's currently using TRo connection (and so we don't have a TRo), but we should handle that with build switch (THd reads from TRo channel and TRo can just be a copy of TDi for now if THD_USING_TRO_CONNECTOR build switch enabled, actual future code where both sensors exist on their own connectors if build switch is disabled).

Is this needed. Should we just let Standby mode set actuators as it wants on entry?

Is this needed. Should we just let Standby mode set actuators as it wants on entry?

I think we should at least say that the mode variables are reset to re-start the mode or something.

I think we should at least say that the mode variables are reset to re-start the mode or something.

Why are some values aligned at left and others at right? I think all values should align at left.

Why are some values aligned at left and others at right? I think all values should align at left.

I'm assuming HET was enabled to get access to a GPIO pin? If so, do we need these notifications? Is there a place in HalCOGen to disable HET interrupts?

I'm assuming HET was enabled to get access to a GPIO pin? If so, do we need these notifications? Is there a place in HalCOGen to disable HET interrupts?

Not necessary - included in .h file.

Not necessary - included in .h file.

Please keep this case in last position in switch statement.

Please keep this case in last position in switch statement.

Why commented out?

Why commented out?

Remove comments or add TODO.

Remove comments or add TODO.

I think we can remove this test code now.

I think we can remove this test code now.

Should we call setAlarmAudio here? This test is running at 50 ms while the setAlarmAudio is running at 250 ms. The alarm audio might not be set when we switch to else part.

Should we call setAlarmAudio here?
This test is running at 50 ms while the setAlarmAudio is running at 250 ms. The alarm audio might not be set when we switch to else part.

The flag is latched by using OR with the local updated noNewTreatment status.

The flag is latched by using OR with the local updated noNewTreatment status.

But now in order to use the status flag, I think we can't allow that flag to go from TRUE to FALSE - need to latch it.

But now in order to use the status flag, I think we can't allow that flag to go from TRUE to FALSE - need to latch it.

Removed this extra flag and used alarm status noNewTreatment flag.

Removed this extra flag and used alarm status noNewTreatment flag.

Removed this extra flag.

Removed this extra flag.

Done.

Done.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

Yes, and we checked for DG restarted (after it has started by HD) in DGInterface. Sample water sub-mode has to check before DG started.

Yes, and we checked for DG restarted (after it has started by HD) in DGInterface.
Sample water sub-mode has to check before DG started.

Looks like you are latching the noEndTreatment status. Maybe we can have that status be latching so we don't need two flags.

Looks like you are latching the noEndTreatment status. Maybe we can have that status be latching so we don't need two flags.

Is this different than alarmStatus.noNewTreatment?

Is this different than alarmStatus.noNewTreatment?

Shouldn't this be checked more broadly (not just in water sample sub-mode)?

Shouldn't this be checked more broadly (not just in water sample sub-mode)?

DG-DEN-8030_DG-HD DEV Mode Chemical Disinfect
DG-DEN-8030_DG-HD DEV Mode Chemical Disinfect
Removed.

Removed.

I think rather than 37, these should be the lowest high priority rank (i.e. 49) so we can add new alarms and not have to renumber these. Also, I think the range for high priority alarms should have...

I think rather than 37, these should be the lowest high priority rank (i.e. 49) so we can add new alarms and not have to renumber these. Also, I think the range for high priority alarms should have room for more than 50 alarms. Maybe high priority could be 1..499, medium priority 500..599, and low priority 600..699.

Dara, do we need these handlers or not?

Dara, do we need these handlers or not?

We should delete this dead code as well.

We should delete this dead code as well.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.

RESOLVED in CODE WALKTHROUGH.