You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For the TMC2209 IC, the definition for #PWMSCALE is presumably missing the underscore (line 49).
This definition is intended to be used in lines 296 and 299 with the underscore PWM_SCALE. This would also be consistent naming convention as PWM_AUTO.
I do not currently use any other TMC ICs, but if this change is approved then this typo could be present in other ICs.
Doing a quick search in the other ICs, using PWMSCALE is consistent in the initial definition, but the use in the associated *_FIELD defines is inconsistent.
For example:
Several ICs like the 2208, 2209, 2224, 2225, 2226, and 5160 define PWMSCALE but then use PWM_SCALE in the *_field definitions.
Several ICs like the 2300, 2240, and 5240 define PWMSCALE and use PWMSCALE (versus PWM_SCALE) in the *_field definitions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
For the TMC2209 IC, the definition for #PWMSCALE is presumably missing the underscore (line 49).
This definition is intended to be used in lines 296 and 299 with the underscore PWM_SCALE. This would also be consistent naming convention as PWM_AUTO.
I do not currently use any other TMC ICs, but if this change is approved then this typo could be present in other ICs.
Doing a quick search in the other ICs, using PWMSCALE is consistent in the initial definition, but the use in the associated *_FIELD defines is inconsistent.
For example:
Several ICs like the 2208, 2209, 2224, 2225, 2226, and 5160 define PWMSCALE but then use PWM_SCALE in the *_field definitions.
Several ICs like the 2300, 2240, and 5240 define PWMSCALE and use PWMSCALE (versus PWM_SCALE) in the *_field definitions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: