Skip to content

[Refactor] AnalogIO->AnalogIn#193

Open
brentru wants to merge 10 commits into
api-v2from
refactor/analogio
Open

[Refactor] AnalogIO->AnalogIn#193
brentru wants to merge 10 commits into
api-v2from
refactor/analogio

Conversation

@brentru
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@brentru brentru commented May 11, 2026

This pull request:

  • Replaces analogio.proto with analogin.proto to properly define its operation in WipperSnapper.
  • New Feature - Pins belonging to an ADC (for example) may optionally have their own reference voltage (ref_voltage) rather than relying on the platform default.
  • New Feature - Pins belonging to an ADC may optionally set a gain to boost signals.

Resolves #191

@brentru brentru requested review from lorennorman and tyeth May 11, 2026 18:01
@brentru
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

brentru commented May 11, 2026

On WipperSnapper Arduino, this refactor is part of the existing expander refactor (PR #913)

Comment thread proto/wippersnapper/analogin.proto Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@tyeth tyeth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As discussed today, it might make more sense to shift Gain to be a components custom properties rather than have to define each possibility in this enum ahead of time.
The ref voltage still makes sense here.

From Loren's summary of our talk:

basically we may want to expose a kind of language of custom properties that we can:

  • implement however you want in the per-component firmware code
  • add an arbitrary list of options/inputs to the json for that specific component
  • web form draws it some way or other, stores selection in db
  • protobufs have an optional sidecar for carrying this data
  • firmware knows it will get one of the exact options that were put in the json

@brentru
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

brentru commented May 14, 2026

Related: #193

@brentru
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

brentru commented May 15, 2026

@tyeth Your comment above has been addressed by #197 which is now merged into this branch

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants