Skip to content

Fix pwmout period #2103

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

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Jul 15, 2016
Merged

Fix pwmout period #2103

merged 16 commits into from
Jul 15, 2016

Conversation

LMESTM
Copy link
Contributor

@LMESTM LMESTM commented Jul 5, 2016

This PR applies the below existing STM32F3 fix to other STM32 families.
[STM32F3] Increase the supported period range (#1682)
The fix allows to support and use wider pwmout period range.

While doing the change, I introduce a common header file to avoid duplicate definition of the same structures. This same header file (common_ojects.h) can be later use to bring in even more common definitions.

Laurent MEUNIER added 16 commits July 5, 2016 10:53
The new period needs to be saved before the duty cycle is updated as
the period is used in pwmout_write function.

Also presclaer shall better be initiliazed properly.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
Some of the objects in object.h are the same for all targets.
Create a place where to define those common definitions, and
start using it for pwm object.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
As first reported on STM32F3 family in ARMmbed#1682, we need to cope
with periods in the seconds range as well. This is fixed here in
the same way as was done for STM32F3 by using the pre-scaler.
@LMESTM
Copy link
Contributor Author

LMESTM commented Jul 12, 2016

@0xc0170 any blocking for merging or do you need any specific extra info ?
This has been tested on all STM32 supported boards ...

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jul 13, 2016

we'll run CI, and review the code

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jul 13, 2016

@mbed-bot: TEST

HOST_OSES=ALL
BUILD_TOOLCHAINS=ALL
TARGETS=ALL

@mbed-bot
Copy link

[Build 619]
FAILURE: Something went wrong when building and testing.

@0xc0170 0xc0170 removed the needs: CI label Jul 15, 2016
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jul 15, 2016

Tests results are fine

@0xc0170 0xc0170 merged commit 46057c5 into ARMmbed:master Jul 15, 2016
@LMESTM LMESTM deleted the fix_pwmout_period branch May 23, 2017 15:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants