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

radio.printDetails() #189

Closed
Avamander opened this issue Jan 9, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

radio.printDetails() #189

Avamander opened this issue Jan 9, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

@Avamander
Copy link
Member

I just got a few new modules and I discovered that radio.printDetails works only with pingpair_ack example. Pingpair_dyn for example doesn't print anything.

@Avamander Avamander added the bug label Jan 9, 2016
@TMRh20
Copy link
Member

TMRh20 commented Jan 10, 2016

Per #130 it does need to be enabled. The examples aren't very consistent with printf/printDetails() inclusion, but I don't necessarily think it should be enabled by default in every sketch, because it uses extra memory & program space.
The printDetails() functionality has bugged me since day 1, but converting it to use Serial.print instead of printf, complicates portability. I suppose it could be detected, but that adds more complexity to a relatively simple thing.
I'm up for any suggestions or changes to clean it up or explain the functionality a bit better somehow.

@Avamander
Copy link
Member Author

Let's create a new print() function and then include it with RF24? That way the platform could be detected and correct printing method selected without cluttering the examples itself?

@TMRh20
Copy link
Member

TMRh20 commented Jan 10, 2016

A couple things to consider, if we want to maintain backwards compatibility (to avoid further confusion & difficulty) we would still have to maintain/keep the old printDetails() code in some form or make the new version compatible. Device detection has been a bit difficult without actually having a wide range of hardware to test on, so that can be a bit tricky. Other than that, I can't think of too many problems with the idea other than having to code & maintain it, but if it can be done nicely, maybe its worth doing?

@2bndy5
Copy link
Member

2bndy5 commented Sep 14, 2020

I would be in favor of a registerDump() function that uses a tailored typdef object to return all the available registers' contents.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants