| ??? 06/27/10 18:42 Read: times |
#176939 - Timer resolution Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The suggestion is absolutely fine but the 50ms overflow rate I had chosen was because I wanted to invoke the interrupt as less frequently as possible, since I have some time critical code which wont like to be interrupted. I was just trying to play safe. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Ideas for Multi-tap keyboard routine | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| just follow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Multi-tap is not too difficult | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two-step operation. Keyboard input + post-processing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| State Machine! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Agree 100% | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Time to code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Software Timers! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Practical Limits | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't lock up in infinite loops everywhere | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| In the pseudo code... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| State Machine | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Divide by 5 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Timer resolution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| State Machine | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Looks not bad programming practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Using Timer May Still be Possible | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Done ! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Very Cool!!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Compare with zero is better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Avoid ISR jitter using timer T1 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Code! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks Munish... | 01/01/70 00:00 |