jcea wrote:..."on" or "off" depends of the external electronic components...
I must admit I was surprised. There has been lengthy debate on GitHub on Pin and Signal method names. The solution of pins being "high" or "low" and signals being "on" or "off" was suggested early on and seems in accordance with reality.
jcea wrote:...Another thing I don't like is that now "Timer" is a soft interrupt...
That one had passed me by, but I think you are correct. I believe the pyb
module still gives hard IRQ's only: the change affects machine
. It looks like the intention is to make it user configurable, but this hasn't yet been implemented.
It would be interesting to quantify the difference in latency between "hard" and "soft" on the ESP series. On the Pyboard I'd expect a big difference as hard IRQ's are precisely that: they pre-empt everything barring higher priority hard interrupts. The key point is that they pre-empt GC which (a) leads to the allocation restrictions and (b) avoids the GC latency which can be a few ms.
On the ESP8266 the "hard" interrupt latency is truly abysmal - I've measured figures in the high hundreds of microseconds and that's with nothing happening on the WiFi stack. A true worst-case could be over 1ms. A "hard" IRQ may be little better than a "soft" one if you keep GC overhead down by periodically invoking it in code. Actual measurements would be interesting. It pays to be wary of code which relies on timing accuracy.