Thanks, is really good stuff! A little difficult for me to read but that's my shortcoming, and one that is completely dwarfed by how the compiler is handling the math for the table generation. Very cool.
I'd like to incorporate most of your changes but I've made a few significant changes myself so I'll have to spend some time combining these. I'll upload 0.9.6 to github after I can test tonight but it may be several days before I can get these two merged.
Quick question - it should probably be obvious but why are you using these read functions 'pgm_read_word(&rpmReference[rpmIndex])' to read the table cells?
One of the issues I found was an oversight on my part to use the correct typing in the microseconds to degrees calculation. When I fixed it I found a notable amount of "clipping" on the higher rpm, lower voltage (upper right in this illustration) corner of the dwell table when I used dwell data for the LS1 / D580 coils.
Code:
// for ls1 / D580 coils
#define DWELL_TGT 6.1 // dwell target in milliseconds - edit to your liking
#define CRANK_DWELL_TGT 3.6 // dwell target for cranking / startup
#define ACCEL_COMP 0.6 // for accell comp table
const uint8_t PROGMEM dwellTable[VOLT_DIVS][RPM_DIVS] = {
{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 14, 31, 41, 51, 62, 71, 82, 92, 102, 113, 123, 133, 144, 155, 163, 173, 185, 198, 207, 230, 250, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255 }, << last cell should be 346.9
{ 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 12, 27, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 83, 92, 101, 110, 119, 129, 138, 146, 155, 165, 177, 185, 205, 224, 238, 255, 255, 255, 255 },
{ 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 11, 25, 34, 42, 51, 59, 67, 76, 84, 93, 101, 109, 119, 127, 135, 143, 152, 163, 171, 189, 206, 219, 241, 255, 255, 255 },
{ 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 10, 23, 31, 39, 47, 55, 63, 71, 78, 87, 94, 102, 110, 118, 125, 133, 141, 151, 159, 176, 191, 203, 224, 241, 250, 255 }, << last cell should be 265.3
{ 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 9, 22, 29, 37, 44, 51, 59, 66, 73, 81, 88, 95, 103, 111, 117, 124, 133, 142, 149, 165, 179, 191, 210, 226, 235, 254 },
{ 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 8, 21, 28, 36, 43, 50, 57, 64, 71, 79, 86, 92, 100, 107, 113, 120, 128, 137, 144, 159, 174, 184, 203, 219, 227, 246 },
{ 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 20, 27, 34, 41, 47, 54, 61, 67, 75, 81, 88, 95, 102, 108, 114, 122, 130, 137, 151, 165, 175, 193, 207, 215, 233 },
{ 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 7, 19, 26, 33, 39, 45, 52, 59, 65, 72, 78, 84, 92, 98, 104, 110, 117, 126, 132, 146, 159, 169, 186, 200, 208, 225 },
{ 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, 19, 25, 31, 38, 44, 50, 57, 63, 69, 75, 81, 88, 95, 100, 106, 113, 121, 127, 141, 153, 163, 179, 193, 200, 217 },
{ 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, 18, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 68, 74, 80, 86, 93, 98, 104, 111, 119, 124, 138, 150, 159, 176, 189, 196, 213 }
};
I was starting to think this wasn't worth doing correctly because these are some fairly dumb operating ranges (< 10.49 volts, > 5600 rpm), but making the dwell table a 16 bit uint only uses another ~300 bytes of flash but I've also found a few things I can optimize and a few routines that can be eliminated so it will only cost a hundred bytes or so.
Originally Posted by spfautsch
Thanks, is really good stuff! A little difficult for me to read but that's my shortcoming, and one that is completely dwarfed by how the compiler is handling the math for the table generation. Very cool.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks