Skip to content

Conversation

filterpaper
Copy link
Contributor

Description

  • Deprecated and removed the debounce_init function
  • Removed num_rows parameter from debounce function

Types of Changes

  • Core
  • Bugfix
  • New feature
  • Enhancement/optimization
  • Keyboard (addition or update)
  • Keymap/layout (addition or update)
  • Documentation

Checklist

  • My code follows the code style of this project: C, Python
  • I have read the PR Checklist document and have made the appropriate changes.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • I have tested the changes and verified that they work and don't break anything (as well as I can manage).

@filterpaper filterpaper force-pushed the debounce_kbmatrix_update branch from b65c80b to e5dc64b Compare September 8, 2025 01:02
@filterpaper filterpaper force-pushed the debounce_kbmatrix_update branch 2 times, most recently from dc11800 to 52e7813 Compare September 8, 2025 02:48
@filterpaper filterpaper force-pushed the debounce_kbmatrix_update branch from 52e7813 to 9ad57ba Compare September 8, 2025 03:01
@filterpaper
Copy link
Contributor Author

filterpaper commented Sep 8, 2025

This is a follow up to #25515

@zvecr
Copy link
Member

zvecr commented Sep 8, 2025

Please add back the init functions (be it without the rows argument).

This still forms part of the custom API, where someone might still want to do something like alloc memory per the previous implementations.

@filterpaper
Copy link
Contributor Author

filterpaper commented Sep 8, 2025

Please add back the init functions (be it without the rows argument).

This still forms part of the custom API, where someone might still want to do something like alloc memory per the previous implementations.

Are you suggesting that void debounce_init(uint8_t num_rows) {} should be replaced with void debounce_init(void) {} instead? If you would like to leave the API open for custom implementation, would it be better to leave the debounce code in its current state, where the parameter is available on both functions?

@zvecr
Copy link
Member

zvecr commented Sep 8, 2025

Are you suggesting that void debounce_init(uint8_t num_rows) {} should be replaced with void debounce_init(void) {} instead?

Yes, that would be my preference.

would it be better to leave the debounce code in its current state, where the parameter is available on both functions?

I would be okay with custom implementations using the same MATRIX_ROWS_PER_SIDE assumptions as core, but lets see what others say.

@drashna drashna self-requested a review September 10, 2025 08:44
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