plieningerweb
commented
8 years ago This was not intentional and seems like a bug. I was only skeptical if these high rates will work.
So I think your findings are very valuable!
Could you maybe create a pull request? This would help me a lot!
On Aug 22, 2016 00:02, "dziadyga" notifications@github.com wrote:
void Softuart_Init(Softuart *s, uint16_t baudrate)
"baudrate" parameter being uint16_t is limited to 65535. Is this intentional? (not to use higher baud rates?) After changing parameter type to "uint32_t" baud rate 115200 works (kinda). Also - "bit_time" is calculated to 8 for baudrate 115200, but I think 9 would be closer.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/plieningerweb/esp8266-software-uart/issues/9, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAdXU5_kzqEmNUm5kodt3NxNemt6Nl0Tks5qiMsCgaJpZM4JpZpN .
void Softuart_Init(Softuart *s, uint16_t baudrate)
"baudrate" parameter being uint16_t is limited to 65535. Is this intentional? (not to use higher baud rates?) After changing parameter type to "uint32_t" baud rate 115200 works (kinda). Also - "bit_time" is calculated to 8 for baudrate 115200, but I think 9 would be closer.