It's a pity you made them over v1.7, and that I'm extremely busy at the moment :/
Would you consider forking the current github repo (https://github.com/pmos69/dso203_gcc) and adding some/all changes, even little by little? (there's some overlap with latter changes in v1.8-v1.24)
If you fork the github repo, you can commit changes there and issue a pull request at any time so that changes can be merged in the current code.
PS:
Just did took a very quick look at some changes in the calibration and there are a few things I still don't understand.
For example, in Balance() and Calibrat(), I don't understand why you initialize a_Avg and b_Avg with anything other than 0, since they are not really averages but cumulative values and the averaging is only done at the end.
ex from Calibrat():
Code: Select all
...
a_Avg = 2048; b_Avg = 2048;
for(i=0; i <4096; i++){
DataBuf[i] = __Read_FIFO(); // read into the 32-bit FIFO data
swap=0x300;
swap &= DataBuf[i];
if ((swap==0x100)||(swap==0x200))DataBuf[i]^=0x300; //swap 2 least significant digits of chB, fixes error in FPGA programming
a_Avg += (DataBuf[i] & 0xFF ); // cumulative DC average
a_Avg-=ADCoffset;
b_Avg += ((DataBuf[i]>>8) & 0xFF );
b_Avg-=ADCoffset;
}
TmpA = Ka1[Range] +(Ka2[Range]*(a_Avg/4096)+ 512)/1024;
TmpB = Kb1[Range] +(Kb2[Range]*(b_Avg/4096)+ 512)/1024;
...If that's the case, it doesn't make sense to initialize avg_a and avg_b with anything other that 0.
It would make sense to initialize them to a value representing 0, if avg_a and avg_b were averages to begin with, and not cumulative values.
If one imagines, for example, that the buffer only had 1 value, and not 4096, I would presume the cumulative values for avg_a and avg_b would have to be equal to the values in the buffer, whatever the values in the buffer, and dividing the cumulatives by the number of samples (1) the averages would also also always be the same as the values in the buffer.
That does not happen in the current code.
As the math is done, if I imagine different buffer sizes with all constant values, the end result varies with the buffer size, even if the values in the buffers are all the same, and that doesn't seem right.
It's a fact the "error" tends to zero as the buffer size increases, but nonetheless..
