fix mistaken use of PWM channel for slice #5667
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In RP2040 PWM, the term channel is overloaded. Sometimes it means one of two channels (A or B) in a slice, sometimes it means one of 16 PWM output channels, and sometimes it is another name for slice (of which there are 8).
It appears we used an AB channel number when we meant to use a slice number. This caused #5556.
I renamed some uses of the word
channel
, when it meant an A or B slice channel. I renamed those channels toab_channel
, to make this clearer. But I'd kind of like another term for the 16-instance channels as well, maybepwm_channel
, or something.I also made a doc issue for the RP2040 folks about the overloading: raspberrypi/pico-feedback#209