Hi,
On 14 November 2017 at 03:16, will sanfilippo wrote:
> +1 Sounds good to me.
>
> > On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Christopher Collins
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:32:58PM -0800, will sanfilippo wrote:
> >> Chris:
> >>
> >> Personally, I think there should be separate API as it
+1 Sounds good to me.
> On Nov 13, 2017, at 5:24 PM, Christopher Collins wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:32:58PM -0800, will sanfilippo wrote:
>> Chris:
>>
>> Personally, I think there should be separate API as it is more flexible and
>> the API names more accurately describe what the AP
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 04:32:58PM -0800, will sanfilippo wrote:
> Chris:
>
> Personally, I think there should be separate API as it is more flexible and
> the API names more accurately describe what the API is doing.
>
> I do realize that this is more work and given that there currently is no A
Chris:
Personally, I think there should be separate API as it is more flexible and the
API names more accurately describe what the API is doing.
I do realize that this is more work and given that there currently is no API to
clear a pending interrupt, I suspect that everyone who used the enable
Hello all,
It appears there is some inconsistency among implementations of the
`hal_gpio_irq_enable()` function. There are two behaviors associated
with this function:
(1) Enable the interrupt associated with the specified pin.
(2) Clear any pending interrupt associated with the specifie