first implementation of 1-wire protocol

[conejoninja]

I would like @dn-kolesnikov to review this PR as it was mainly his work, I just adapted it to the proper repo structure.

Once merge, issue #489 could be closed.

[deadprogram]

Was just looking at this PR. So first of all seems to me that it would be better to structure the files like this:

onewire/onewire.go

And then separately

ds18b20/ds18b20.go

This seems more in keeping with the way things like lora and net are currently.

Future onewire devices (EEPROMs, fuel gauges, etc.) would be added at the root level, like pretty much all of the other drivers are now.

What do you think?

[deadprogram]

Also, to be in fully correct naming it should be 1-wire not onewire.

Due to Go naming rules this would turn into just wire, correct?

This seems appealing:

package somedevice

import "tinygo.org/x/drivers/1-wire"

func (d *Driver) DoSomething() {
    wire.Reset()
    wire.Write(...)
}

What do you think?

[conejoninja]

I just follow @dn-kolesnikov naming.

NOTE: There's a popular Arduino library called Wire that handles I²C communication, https://www.arduino.cc/reference/en/language/functions/communication/wire/ It might be confusing?

[deadprogram]

The name of the package here would be 1-wire In any case, I doubt there would be confusion over that particular name in the code.

Regarding the directory organization, I am not really in favor of the proposed structure. How do we proceed?

[conejoninja]

the structure you proposed seems ok to me and make sense. I'll make the changes and uodate the PR

[conejoninja]

I updated the package as suggested, renamed the folder to 1-wire , and the package to wire (suggested by the IDE was __wire), then, we are forced to import it as

import (
    "machine"
    "time"
    wire "tinygo.org/x/drivers/1-wire"

    "tinygo.org/x/drivers/ds18b20"
)

It's ok for me.

[dn-kolesnikov]

Was just looking at this PR. So first of all seems to me that it would be better to structure the files like this:

onewire/onewire.go

And then separately

ds18b20/ds18b20.go

This seems more in keeping with the way things like lora and net are currently.

Future onewire devices (EEPROMs, fuel gauges, etc.) would be added at the root level, like pretty much all of the other drivers are now.

What do you think?

The Arduino standard library is called OneWire (https://www.arduino.cc/reference/en/libraries/onewire/).

[deadprogram]

@dn-kolesnikov has a good point. We should probably name it onewire.

[matveynator]

Good day ). As each device are using tiny bits of onewire protocol implementation (as I understood - small memory usage wise) it is good that devices are added root level. "onewire" name also seems reasonable... I am also ready to help )

[dn-kolesnikov]

at the moment I am checking the function of searching for multiple devices on the bus. I had to change the Device structure and add a few additional functions. the next commit to my repository will break compatibility with the current versions of the library. the examples will also be rewritten taking into account the new changes.

[conejoninja]

at the moment I am checking the function of searching for multiple devices on the bus. I had to change the Device structure and add a few additional functions. the next commit to my repository will break compatibility with the current versions of the library. the examples will also be rewritten taking into account the new changes.

Feel free to make the PR directly from your repository. I did it because I needed for a FOSDEM talk, but I started to think it will not be merged on time, no need to rush.

[deadprogram]

I was actually getting ready to merge this unless there is some reason I shouldn't?

[conejoninja]

I was actually getting ready to merge this unless there is some reason I shouldn't?

well, @dn-kolesnikov commented the next change will break the compatibility, so I guess it's better to wait

[bgould]

@conejoninja Sounds like @dn-kolesnikov has some new version of this mentioned in #489 ... how should we move forward with this, do you want to merge the changes into your branch or just should @dn-kolesnikov start a new one?

[conejoninja]

I think the conversation is going a bit off-topic. We could merge this and make improvements later.

[bxparks]

I think the conversation is going a bit off-topic. We could merge this and make improvements later.

Sorry about that, I agree.

[deadprogram]

OK based on the last comments I am squash/merging. Thank you very much everyone who worked on this!