| ??? 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 |