-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Merge in sp24 drivers/platforms #54
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
[Common] Makefile Helpers
…ingup Fall 2024" This reverts commit 4e42c87.
…ingup Fall 2024" This reverts commit 4e42c87.
WIP: [BearlyML'24] Add DMA and quantized transformer drivers
Merge in individual driver code
@Fi50 @doihead @jasmangle REVIEW ME PLZ :3 |
Reviewed, looks mostly good to me. There should be RCC drivers included with this as well for Bearly24 and DSP24 to replace the current clock selection struct and allow for tile reset control, but I can copy those over fairly quickly (will need to test this tomorrow, but I'll be in the lab for a bit so I should be able to). The clock select struct was made hastily as a quick fix approach to getting a simple PLL startup and shouldn't be coupled with the Intel driver, since the clock selection ultimately happens through PRCI. Will merge ucb-bar#5 when I've tested it. |
@@ -20,22 +35,55 @@ void pwm_stop(PWM_Type *PWMx, uint32_t idx) { | |||
|
|||
void pwm_set_frequency(PWM_Type *PWMx, uint32_t idx, uint32_t freq) { | |||
// TODO: implementation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we maybe remove all the TODO: implementation except where we actually need it else becomes confusing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would be nice to add a header comment regarding the extent PWM was tested but is kind of a cherry on top >_<
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would be nice to clean up + comment a bit more but eh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here, would be nice to comment a bit more I think but eh
reg_write8(DMA_BASE, 0); | ||
} | ||
|
||
void enable_Crack(){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we're gonna upstream this.......... should we change it >_>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Or maybe it's just the labchip cfg that would be nice to comment on Idk
Yeah I didn't analyze too deeply, but left some small suggestions, I think once the PR is ready we should also pass it by @T-K-233 before merging into ucb-bar. I don't see us changing anything that could break a flow for anyone tho. |
No description provided.