Rahix
Okay, I decided to go with the "nuclear" split for now in #129. We can always resplit later on if this turns out to be infeasible, but at least it...
> Glad to hear the decision has been made! Right, sorry for the long wait... > Just to clarify, are the newer series-0/1/2 chips getting their own category? and if...
Such changes should probably be considered with the pending rework of the PORT HAL in #114.
The generic pin type (`port::Pin`) should also be re-exported I suppose.
> First option will suffer from this drawback only when we will publish generic part to frequent. Actually, I think it is the other way around: when updating `avr-hal-generic`, it...
Hi, thanks for the PR! To be quite honest, I would like to keep the template as minimal as possible. From my experience, people will leave all code from a...
I'm a bit confused about this PR: There isn't yet any `arduino-micro` feature in `arduino-hal` so this can't possibly work?
Maybe, for the time being, one could implement a 'custom waker API' that does not use any function pointers? E.g. a global singleton "waker object" that is used unconditionally in...
@RandomInsano: Your comment in #35 made me aware of this issue. I am **strongly against** breaking downstream drivers. One of the main reasons for the design of `shared-bus` was to...
> It should then be possible to experiment and implement a builder api on top as a separate crate if those ergonomics are preferred? @ryankurte: Hmm, unfortunately the builder API...