You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I discovered that when a Metro M4 and Metro M7 are running the same code which acts upon a fixed period of time passing (measured by calls to time.monotonic()), my newly purchased M7 claims the time period has completed in only ~85% of the real time required by the M4. Both are sending begin and end messages via serial to a Raspberry Pi 400 which is listening to the serial via another Python code which measures the elapsed times. The Metro M4, as well as a Trinket M0, Gemma M0, and Circuit Playground Express, all come within 1% of the expected time.
Don't know if this is a clue, but the actual runtime was closer to 83% of what was expected, which is very close to 5/6. Maybe some counter or prescaler is specified incorrectly.
UPDATE: Actually a bit more than 5/6 with further testing. Hopefully I didn't just happen to get a defective M7 somehow. Waiting for further word on this.
I discovered that when a Metro M4 and Metro M7 are running the same code which acts upon a fixed period of time passing (measured by calls to time.monotonic()), my newly purchased M7 claims the time period has completed in only ~85% of the real time required by the M4. Both are sending begin and end messages via serial to a Raspberry Pi 400 which is listening to the serial via another Python code which measures the elapsed times. The Metro M4, as well as a Trinket M0, Gemma M0, and Circuit Playground Express, all come within 1% of the expected time.
Full details can be found in my forum post at https://forums.adafruit.com/viewtopic.php?p=1039811. The test procedure I used, as well as results, are posted there as well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: