| ??? 06/28/06 10:16 Read: times |
#119250 - Reminds me... (off topic) Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Peter Dannegger said:
So the better approach was always to accept a new state if it was equal for at least four sample times. The method somehow reminds me of how 8051 read UART signal. It uses three samples though, and considered true if the three samples within one bit are exact. I think it's fancy to have the method on switch debouncing. |
| 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 |