Remove verification check #20
Conversation
adafruit_ds3231.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| if (buf[1] & 0b00011000) != 0b00011000: | ||
| # Try and verify this is the RTC we expect by checking change in secs | ||
| check = self.datetime_register.tm_sec |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's an interesting question. It's possible, if the EOSC bit at 0x0E is set to 0 and the clock is on battery power only, then the clock would be stopped. I think maybe go back to the idea of a parameter being given to the constructor...verify_running=true? If true (default), the constructor verifies that the time is changing and so we have a running clock. If false, then the user clearly wants to be ok just having an item on 0x68.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
good point. could be. hmmm. can be checked with OSF in status reg? but makes me question this general approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
delete it all, use just the addr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so no "is it a DS3231" check? just "yep. something's at 0x68"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
done. address check covered by I2CDevice init.
caternuson
changed the title
Updating https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_DS3231 to 2.2.1 from 2.2.0: > Merge pull request adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_DS3231#20 from caternuson/iss15 > Merge pull request adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_DS3231#19 from adafruit/dherrada-patch-1 Updating https://github.com/adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_TCS34725 to 3.2.3 from 3.2.2: > Merge pull request adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_TCS34725#24 from caternuson/iss20 > Merge pull request adafruit/Adafruit_CircuitPython_TCS34725#23 from adafruit/dherrada-patch-1
Possible fix for #15
Uses approach proposed by @gritnix in issue thread which checks for elapsed time. This slows down the constructor, but avoids relying on a register value that may not be as expected due to regular use.