You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With the database below, combined with a driver that periodically calls setUIntDigitalParam() and callParamCallbacks() for the RANDOM reason, the first record is processed, while the second is not. If it's relevant, I tried setting both valueMask and interruptMask parameters to setUIntDigitalParam() to 0xffff.
What happens there is that RVAL is set from the callback result, then VAL is set, bit by bit, based on values of B1-B1F. RVAL is not considered, and bits are zero, so VAL stays at zero. Given that this piece of code is intended specifically for handling callbacks, that should be turned around, no? VAL should be set from RVAL (after a shift), and B1-B1F should be set from VAL.
With the database below, combined with a driver that periodically calls
setUIntDigitalParam()
andcallParamCallbacks()
for theRANDOM
reason, the first record is processed, while the second is not. If it's relevant, I tried setting bothvalueMask
andinterruptMask
parameters tosetUIntDigitalParam()
to0xffff
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: