-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19.7k
Adjust Filament Runout class #12428
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
thinkyhead
merged 1 commit into
MarlinFirmware:bugfix-2.0.x
from
thinkyhead:bf2_runout_rejigger
Nov 14, 2018
Merged
Adjust Filament Runout class #12428
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
@thinkyhead: I had originally used steps to avoid a multiplication in the callback from the ISR, but if you think doing the conversion to mm here is acceptable, it does make the code more readable. Bravo!
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
This does happen far less often than
run(), but since it happens in the stepper ISR it's an open question. At least it now has the benefit of using multiplication rather than division.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Why not just countdown steps from the pre-calculated initial value? I.e. you could avoid the multiplication in
block_completeif you count down steps instead of mm. The initial amount of steps ( for each extruder ) would be theinitial_mm / planner.steps_to_mm[E_AXIS_N( for each extruder )]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.
@thinkyhead already mentioned that
run()gets called more often thanblock_complete(), so I think your idea would be less efficient, not to mention requiring a division instead of a multiplication. I doubt it makes enough of a difference either way, however.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
ah, ok. so disregard please. Wishful thinking on my part. Unless you trade storage: 32 bits per extruder array of precalculated steps values on setup to re-init the countdown. Then no division in run and no multiplication in ISR.
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.
True. You could precalculate the values as 32-bits per extruder, but storage is very much at a permium on this AVR microcontrollers, so I don't think that would fly :)