Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fw_att_control: move to px4::params #13048

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2019
Merged

fw_att_control: move to px4::params #13048

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2019

Conversation

dagar
Copy link
Member

@dagar dagar commented Sep 29, 2019

We need to carefully check the mix of degrees and radians, but otherwise this should be pretty straightforward.

sfuhrer
sfuhrer previously approved these changes Sep 30, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@sfuhrer sfuhrer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, especially this: image

Also tested it in sitl and on a bench, no differences to master noticeable.

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ px4_add_board(
DRIVERS
adc
barometer # all available barometer drivers
batt_smbus
#batt_smbus
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How does this relate to the rest of the PR?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This change pushed the px4_fmu-v5_stackcheck build over the flash limit. NuttX stackcheck (https://nuttx.org/doku.php?id=wiki:howtos:run-time-stack-checking) instruments every single function call, so in this particular case my guess is it breaks the inlining in these param wrappers. https://github.com/PX4/Firmware/blob/34b03d56593815e16a29ba5dcef9b66208285c98/src/platforms/px4_param.h#L123

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Sep 30, 2019

Looks good, especially this: image

Next we can do this across fw_pos_ctrl_l1 and the entire vtol_att_control.

@dagar dagar requested a review from a team September 30, 2019 15:05
@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Sep 30, 2019

@PX4/testflights could you give this a test on a plane or vtol? For a plane test manual and stabilized on the ground to make sure recovery is possible (worst case).

@dannyfpv
Copy link

dannyfpv commented Sep 30, 2019

Tested on pixhawk 1 v3 Phantom Wing
Ground test on manual mode, no rc response. Tested on stabilized mode worked fine no issue. @dagar

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Sep 30, 2019

Thanks @dannyfpv, I'm glad you caught it on the ground. There was an incorrect radian conversion on the manual scale factors (FW_MAN_R_SC, FW_MAN_P_SC). Should be fixed with the last push.

@dagar
Copy link
Member Author

dagar commented Oct 27, 2019

@PX4/testflights could you try again?

@dannyfpv
Copy link

dannyfpv commented Oct 28, 2019

Tested on fixed wing Pixhawk1 v3
Mission mode: no issues
Altitude mode: no issues
Rtl: no issue
Stabilize mode: no issue
logs:
https://review.px4.io/plot_app?log=37d7eeb1-034a-4c2e-b2bb-b96c1251f197
https://review.px4.io/plot_app?log=8c88a23e-85c3-4213-b857-a746a2810f2a
Screen Shot 2019-10-28 at 12 58 02 PM

note: wind speed 9.0 m/s

@dagar dagar merged commit 47dd312 into master Oct 28, 2019
@dagar dagar deleted the pr-fw_params branch October 28, 2019 22:08
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants