| ??? 07/07/07 20:30 Read: times |
#141575 - the original problem... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
David Prentice said:
Perhaps the OP will come back with the actual chip that he wants to use. He did, but not in this thread; and as hea never needed a 100kHz signal indeed, it made up a very nice intellectual excercise... :-) JW |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| How to generate 100 Khz square wave 80C51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Tips | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1 KHz | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| that's ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SI Units | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1024 = Ki | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| C interrupt overhead | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: C interrupt overhead | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and listen to the guru! :-) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| several reasons | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yet another reason to avoid using HLL's! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Optimizations | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use Timer0 auo reload | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| using | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interrupt vectoring vs. latency | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Then the Interupt must be in ASM | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you mean... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compiler generated IRQ vectors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OOPS we both meant LJMP REALisr | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the original problem... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interrupt Latency + Vectoring + Service | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| indufficient info | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
use MCS52 better option | 01/01/70 00:00 |