??? 01/24/05 17:21 Read: times |
#85677 - Alternatives Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
It is not uncertain, the timer still runs. It is essentially the same as using the 13-bit mode, with the difference that TL0 counts up to 256 rather than up to 32. You can do the same trick with reloading THx only, with a difference that it needs to be reloaded within 256 cycles rather than 32 (and your timing has a Xtal/12/256 granularity, rather than Xtal/12/32; and the interrupt can run 8x slower). Now that is a good point. Granularity is not an issue. Accuracy is so using it in 16 bit mode gives plenty of time to reload. Many thanks. And you can still compensate for interrupt latency by subtracting the current timer value from the reload value - so you get a non-multiple-of-32(256) 16-bit divider for your timing ticks (but the interrupt service routine gets a bit more complicated). Unfortunately this technique is rather part specific and it may be necessary to have other interrupts running so I would prefer not to use it. Ian |
Topic | Author | Date |
Timer 0 Mode 0 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
no and why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
CD quality sampling freq.? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
oops | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
alternatives | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Alternatives | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
comment | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
16 vs 13 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why not T2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
uC crystal ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
uC Crystal | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
cost saving because of may | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Cost Saving | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
at those volumes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
baudrates | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Baud Rates![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |