Eeprom #51
Eeprom #51
Conversation
- Added example / test cases to main.rs in tiva-c-launchpad - Cleaned up EepromError enum - Added impl Display to EepromError - Added increment() method to EepromAddress, used to increment the block and offset. - Improved documentation and function names - Improved the Eeprom peripheral initialization to match the datasheet - Added a delay function to introduce clock cycle delays as called for in the datasheet. See code comments for datasheet sections that point out the delays. - Added erase and erase_block impl. - Much improved test code.
fn set_block_and_offset()
- Updated Changlog, added EEPROM section - Linter / format fixes
|
Sure no problem! I'm still pretty new to Rust and and grappling with the format checking. Sorry about that. If any other internet stranger stumbled across this post helped set things to right to configured VS Code to auto format on save. |
|
|
||
| // 3. Read PRETRY and ERETRY | ||
| if final_eeprom.eeprom.eesupp.read().eretry().bit_is_set() { | ||
| panic!("Eeprom ERETRY bit set, please investigate or stop using the EEPROM peripheral"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a panic or should it return an error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can change to an error, but chose a panic because of the datasheet (section 8.2.4.2):
If the PRETRY or ERETRY bits are set in the EESUPP register, the EEPROM was unable to recover its state. If power is stable when this occurs, this indicates a fatal error and is likely an indication that the EEPROM memory has exceeded its specified lifetime write/erase specification. If the supply voltage is unstable when this return code is observed, retrying the operation once the voltage is stabilized may clear the error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK! Can you add a comment explaining this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, I had added code comments, but did you mean function comment? I have just added a comment to the Eeprom::new() functions that informs users that the function may panic, why, and with the quote from the datasheet explaining the issue.
- Renamed validate_byte_array_bounds to is_access_valid for improved readability - Removed custom delay function, using the cortex_m::asm::delay function now. - Renamed _pc to pc since it was being used in Eeprom::new() - Simplified branching for functions that invoke the is_access_valid(...) function. - Comment improvement
|
Just the comment to go, then ready to merge. Thank you! |
Howdy,
I recently had a requirement to store some variables in EEPROM on the TM4C123 and added code to:
I tested the code in another project using RTIC with a Tiva C Series Launchpad and included the relevant test and example code in
tiva-c-launchpad/src/main.rs. Please let me know if any changes need to be made or if any issues arise during testing.Thanks,
Austin