ncs zephyr example called 'nrfx'

[NordicSwissTom]

ncs 1.5.1, using SES, the example for zephyr
samples/boards/nrf/nrfx/src/main.c
github URL:
github.com/.../main.c

does not work for me;
while the 'button_handler' gets called OK, the LED does not toggle.

And another compiler gives a WARNING on the call lines for n
  nrfx_gppi_channel_endpoints_setup 
due types mismatch!
I think its the last argument per 
nrfx_gpiote_in_event_get(OUTPUT_PIN) 
that should be of enum nrf_gpiote_task_t, but your code is passing an 'event' kind.
I tried to fix but still no LED toggle.

Please review this example.

Thanks!

[Heidi]

Hi!

Which board are you building for?

Best regards,

Heidi

[NordicSwissTom]

Hi Heidi, the 9160 DK (the v0.9 layout)

[Heidi]

I just tested on my nRF9160 DK (0.8.2 layout, NCS 1.5.1) and it works. Could you paste the log output from the sample when you're testing it?

I also don't see any warnings when building the code.  Could you show me the full log output when building?

[NordicSwissTom]

Note, your toy SES compiler will not find this issue.

For the call nrfx_gppi_channel_endpoints_setup,
there is the second part defined as:
  nrf_gpiote_task_address_get( NRF_GPIOTE_Type const * p_reg, nrf_gpiote_task_t task)

but for 'task' argument, your sample source is passing an 'event' kind per:
  nrfx_gpiote_in_event_get(OUTPUT_PIN)

this gives (in a CLang based verifier)
Warning: implicit conversion
  from enumeration type 'nrf_gpiote_event_t'
  to different enumeration type 'nrf_gpiote_task_t'

[Heidi]

When compiling with GNU 9.2.1, I do not get these warnings. 

[NordicSwissTom]

C compilers do not check for enum type mismatch; In my case it is the additional CLang based verifier running. 

I ask again, why should we code for an IN -event on a !OUTPUT! pin?
nrfx_gpiote_in_event_get (OUTPUT_PIN)

While looking at the nrfx implementation, I think it worked (for you) due pure coincidence as the offsets of the channels/registers are the same.

Another point on this line is the mixture of nrfx_* vs nrf_* calls,
I think it would be much better readable as:
  nrfx_gppi_channel_endpoints_setup(channel,
       nrfx_gpiote_in_event_addr_get(INPUT_PIN),
       nrfx_gpiote_out_task_addr_get(OUTPUT_PIN) );