Balancing chamber switching control

remove the space before false.

Remove blank line

Remove blank line.

I tried the suggested change and tested. But it did not provide the expected results.
If a on was requested while an off was still pending to be processed, the off-request flag gets cleared without the actual request being processed and the off request was never executed.

Remove blank line and comment saying we're not doing anything (because now we're doing something).

isBalChamberSwitchingOffRequested is an output.

Should we set the other switch to FALSE, just in case?

This is total mess up . that is what I want it a clean implementation. created a ticket LDT-3563 and closing all review comments.

Removing all the review comments and created a ticket to handle it in separate ticket -LDT-3563

removed.

changed.

removed.

the 2nd if statement for beta 1.0 is an ask from systems team to raise fault alarm if user by mistake enable Beta 2.0 config when Beta1.0 is active

Noe says we can distinguish between beta 1.9 and 2.0 w/ ID (4 and 6).
We still need test configs for beta 1.0 stuff and non-fpga differences.
We can use DD fpga ID # here in this macro instead of test config.
Since this is all temporary, I'm not that concerned about how we do this so long as it works.

I think Sameer is saying that the monitor should just call one get level function in FPGA and that one function (in FpgaDD.c) would handle all of this beta 1/1.9/2.0 stuff.
I agree, but didn't comment on it because it's all temporary anyway.

Why do we need a get function to call another get function? The caller of this function should just call getFPGAGPIOStatus() and then we wouldn't need this.

Move this up to public definitions section.

readFloaterLevelStatus is higher level functions that give the data from the FPGA.
Reason why we had these get functions here is, based on the FPGA response we translate it to the user understandable enum values (low, medium, high)

This is a reset call, as the default requirement is to be on Beta 1.9 HW
The logic is checking if the user is resetting the Beta 2.0 config, if yes, we will have to fall back to the Beta 1.9 FPGA registers

Level.c is a higher level abstracted functions and should not implement the HW dependent details in this file. this details should be pushed to FPGADD. and single function should handle all the cases instead of multiple functions.

Its not required, HW should be auto detected and initialized without any user configuration.