sb10q Likely the confusion is coming from the fact that the Urukul methods advance the time cursor by the duration of the underlying SPI transfers. @rjo Why did you do it this way instead of following the "zero delay" methods of the AD9914 driver?
jintao sb10q Thank you for your answer. What can I do or what code can I use to avoid this？ I am using AD9910 now, and if I can avoid this situation by using AD9914？
rjo sb10q the alternative leads to more confusion and frustration due to collisions. Iirc there was consensus. Maybe check the old discussions.
sb10q Put negative delays or reset the time cursor with now_mu/at_mu. Only NIST-internal hardware has AD9914 so far.
