Em 08-09-2010 20:02, Andy Walls escreveu:

On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 13:27 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

 I'd be inclined to
simply move duty_cycle out of the union and leave just duration and
carrier in it.

That's not necessary and it could be confusing depending on where you
put duty_cycle.

There's that. But without having code that actually uses duty_cycle in a
meaningful way yet, its hard to say for sure. If carrier and duty_cycle
were only being sent out in their own events, you might actually want a
union of duration, carrier and duty_cycle. Though I suspect we'll probably
want to pass along carrier and duty_cycle at the same time.

I suspect you're right on that.  I don't have any experience with
hardware that can actually estimate carrier freq or duty cycle.  I
suspect they can be measured together using edge detection on both
rising and falling edges.

As duty cycle is not currently used, the better is to just remove it from
the struct, adding it on a separate patch, together with a code that will
need it.

Cheers,
Mauro