dd-firmware / firmware / App

Tasks

Clone Tools

Stats

Commits this week: 1
Total Committers: 7
Last Commit: 12 Mar
Commits this week: 1

Lines of code count not available

Commit Activity

Commits By Day In Week
52 week commits volume
Commits By Day In Week
Commits by day
Commits By Day In Week
Commits by hour
Commits By Hour In Day
Commit calendar
 

Most active committers (90 days)

loading
loading
  • last updated a few seconds ago
All Commits Reviews
Constraints
Constraints: committers
 
Constraints: files
Constraints: dates
Monday 27 Apr
9:18 am

Dara Navaei

LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-4000_HDF - FW Implementation - 1/4:
LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-4000_HDF - FW Implementation - 1/4:
Tuesday 14 Apr
10:57 am

Vendor - TEL - Arpita Srivastava

Friday 10 Apr
11:38 am

Sean Nash and Vinayakam Mani

Monday 06 Apr
11:36 am

Vinayakam Mani

Balancing chamber switching control

Balancing chamber switching control

11:29 am

Vinayakam Mani

remove the space before false.

remove the space before false.

11:23 am

Vinayakam Mani

Remove blank line

Remove blank line

11:23 am

Vinayakam Mani

Remove blank line.

Remove blank line.

11:00 am

Sean Nash

10:46 am

Vendor - TEL - Arpita Srivastava

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...

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.

Wednesday 11 Mar
2:07 pm

Sean Nash

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

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

2:05 pm

Sean Nash

isBalChamberSwitchingOffRequested is an output.

isBalChamberSwitchingOffRequested is an output.

2:03 pm

Sean Nash

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

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

Wednesday 25 Feb
3:31 pm

Dara Navaei

LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-1195_DD: Request for a variable for balancing chamber switching to be active (T/F)
LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-1195_DD: Request for a variable for balancing chamber switching to be active (T/F)
Tuesday 24 Feb
11:55 am

Vendor - TEL - Jashwant Gantyada

10:38 am

Dara Navaei

Bamboo Commit: Updated the Copyright section and replaced tabs with 4 spaces

Options
    • -2
    • +2
    ./TaskPriority.c
  2. … 11 more files in changeset.
10:35 am

Raghu Kallala , Vinayakam Mani and Sean Nash

Monday 23 Feb
1:18 pm

Vendor - TEL - Jashwant Gantyada

LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-3344_Firmware support for Beta 2 FPGA updates.
LEAHI-DD-FIRMWARE-LDT-3344_Firmware support for Beta 2 FPGA updates.
Friday 20 Feb
2:19 pm

Vendor - TEL - Sameer Poyil

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

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

2:17 pm

Vendor - TEL - Sameer Poyil

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

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

1:42 pm

Vendor - TEL - Jashwant Gantyada

removed.

removed.

1:42 pm

Vendor - TEL - Jashwant Gantyada

changed.

changed.

1:41 pm

Vendor - TEL - Jashwant Gantyada

removed.

removed.

12:50 pm

Raghu Kallala

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

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

11:03 am

Sean Nash

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 t...

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.

10:22 am

Sean Nash

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 comm...

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.

9:59 am

Sean Nash

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.

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.

9:46 am

Sean Nash

Move this up to public definitions section.

Move this up to public definitions section.

7:59 am

Raghu Kallala

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 understandab...

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)

7:55 am

Raghu Kallala

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 r...

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

1:05 am

Vendor - TEL - Sameer Poyil

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 cas...

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.