Post general discussions on using our drivers to write your own software here
KennyM
Active User
Posts: 19 Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:51 pm
Post
by KennyM » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:34 am
OK, my next question.
The documentation for ps2000_run_block gives the return values as:
Returns 0: if one of the parameters is out of range.
1: if successful.
However when I run my unit tests, I am getting back the value of 4 from this method.
I find that if I just treat !=0 as OK, then my tests all pass, but being a good little programmer I should not be ignoring unexpected return codes!
Can anyone tell me what a return value of 4 means, or is it just safe to check for !=0 ?
It does not seem to tie in with any of the error codes in the header file, as 4 would be :
PS2000_FW_FAIL, //unabled to download firmware
Thanks again,
Kenny.
-Kenny M.
ziko
Advanced User
Posts: 1705 Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:03 am
Location: St Neots
Post
by ziko » Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:11 pm
Hi it shouldn't be returning 4, what product are you using? also what is the driver version?
Kind regards
Ziko
Technical Specialist
KennyM
Active User
Posts: 19 Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:51 pm
Post
by KennyM » Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:23 pm
ziko wrote: Hi it shouldn't be returning 4, what product are you using? also what is the driver version?
Kind regards
Hi Ziko,
The 'scope is a Pico 2105 handheld.
PS2000.dll is version 2.0.8.3
PicoPP.sys is version 1.13.2
The SDK is version 6.2.14.0
I hope this is helpful....
-Kenny
-Kenny M.
Robin
Advanced User
Posts: 558 Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:17 am
Post
by Robin » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:00 am
Hi Kenny
Are you using the correct return type (short)?
This is often the cause of unexpected return values.
Robin
KennyM
Active User
Posts: 19 Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:51 pm
Post
by KennyM » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:09 am
Robin wrote: Hi Kenny
Are you using the correct return type (short)?
Yip, checked and double checked!
-Kenny M.
Robin
Advanced User
Posts: 558 Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:17 am
Post
by Robin » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:18 am
It could be a bug in the driver. I will look in to it and get back to you.
KennyM
Active User
Posts: 19 Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:51 pm
Post
by KennyM » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:44 am
Thanks Robin,
It's not causing me any trouble, I just check for !=0 at the moment, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Thanks again for the very quick replies - you are putting other companies to shame in the speed of your support replies.
-Kenny M.
Robin
Advanced User
Posts: 558 Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:17 am
Post
by Robin » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:23 pm
Hi Kenny
Having looked at the driver, it is written to return a non-zero value on success, which is not necessarily 1. So it is the documentation that is erroneous rather than the driver. I will make sure the manual is updated.
Keep checking for !=0
Robin
KennyM
Active User
Posts: 19 Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:51 pm
Post
by KennyM » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:39 pm
Brill
I'm glad that's clear.
Thanks
-Kenny M.