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
It appears that both implementations of is_low differ in output for the same logic level of the input pin:
use embedded_hal::digital::InputPin;use rppal::gpio::{Gpio,InputPinasRppalInputPin};fnmain(){let gpio = Gpio::new().unwrap();letmut interrupt = gpio.get(6).unwrap().into_input();println!("is low hal: {}, is low rppal: {}",InputPin::is_low(&mut interrupt).unwrap(),RppalInputPin::is_low(&interrupt));}
With rppal v0.17.0 and embedded-hal v1.0.0 this code outputs: is low hal: false, is low rppal: true while with rppal v0.16.0 and embedded hal v1.0 rc2 this code outputs is low hal: true, is low rppal: true. During this test the raspi 4b pin was pulled low (0V)
I don't think the rppal v0.17.0 behavior is intended and this is likely a bug. Please let me know if there is some other reason for this change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It appears that both implementations of
is_low
differ in output for the same logic level of the input pin:With rppal v0.17.0 and embedded-hal v1.0.0 this code outputs:
is low hal: false, is low rppal: true
while with rppal v0.16.0 and embedded hal v1.0 rc2 this code outputsis low hal: true, is low rppal: true
. During this test the raspi 4b pin was pulled low (0V)I don't think the rppal v0.17.0 behavior is intended and this is likely a bug. Please let me know if there is some other reason for this change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: