??? 06/28/06 06:51 Read: times |
#119238 - some hair-splitting Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Kai Klaas said:
mov r7,r6 ;save r6 mov r6,r5 ;save r5 mov r5,r4 ;save r4[etc...] While the idea is neat (there are often a few byes of RAM available to spend them for a quick debouncing algo rather than perform a bunch of operations to obtain vertical counters - especially with >2 bits), in '51, you cannot mov one register into another. However, you can mov direct into direct, so the algo can be 1:1 rewritten for direct addresses (and it does not need to be in the register space). JW |
Topic | Author | Date |
Multiple switch debouncing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Otherways | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Vertical counters | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
vertical conters in C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
and here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
vertical counter with press detection | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
debounce and denoise needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You are right of course, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Reminds me... (off topic) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
XRL P2,A | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
some hair-splitting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
exchange | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
thanx Kai ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
my way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
exactly! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Spot on. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Two samples enough? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
varies with design | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Conditional executing versus branching | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
KEY RELEASE SUBROUTINE ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Not really... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
a TOTAL misconception or -very annoying | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
He does not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Beer o'clock | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes, good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
never did, never will | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Agree![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |