| ??? 05/16/07 21:32 Read: times |
#139403 - assuming you can do the math... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
As I said in my first post, now i'm not using the delay with a timer because I'm using the serial port. Erik Malund said:
If you use a loop delay for timing and ANY ISR besides the timing of the count, you will get an error whenever an interrupt occur (the execution of the ISR add to the delay) ... but as you count the number of these T0 ISRs, you know exactly how much time you spent in them... It's just to do the math properly (which I don't say is trivial). Erik Malund said:
get a chip with T2 Well, this can't hurt... :-) JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 8051 frequency meter. Interrupt question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Formatted Code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks Jon | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No Problem - What about EA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| EA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| corrected code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that is a pipe dream | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| External hardware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why no more than 100K? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the obvious way to do this is to use one timer as | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is a 3rd byte | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no good | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| assuming you can do the math... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| HUH | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| And what? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ... and ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Eh? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the counter is not 'a counter' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you should be on the safe side... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| who cares who 'wins' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Continuation... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| now let\'s cheat | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Get something working first | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I diasagree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
It's WORKING!! | 01/01/70 00:00 |