The design review document forced us to flesh out more of our design. In retrospect, we probably should have spent more time drafting the report.
The most significant risk ATM would probably be the integration of all the components. I (David) will be spending sometime this break mocking up an end-to-end skeleton of the project in order to force myself to hash out the specific interfaces and responsibilities between the code I and Chris will be writing after we return to break.
No major changes were made to the design, but I realized while writing the design review doc that the ADS1015 had an on-board comparator for binary comparison. It’s conceivable that we could tune the comparator values so that the responsibility of interpreting the signal change is handled by hardware. This also could provide some de-bouncing capability via its queue function as well. This is less general, and would be trading software complexity with hardware tuning, so I think our original approach is still sound.
No updates in schedule atm. I (David) should be able to provide a more accurate Gantt Chart for my work in the next few days or so.