| ??? 06/14/05 15:04 Modified: 06/14/05 15:06 Read: times |
#94896 - Yes, but... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik said:
...but as far as watchdog it is far more likely that a runaway program will toggle a port bit than it will make two exact consequtive writes. Ok, but it needs two toggles to fead the dog. And if you make the port going high in the main routine and going low in the periodically invoked subroutine, then an eroneously feading of the dog becomes much less probable. To tell you the truth, I'm not so much interested in the watchdog performance, but more in the brownout detection. It's no good idea to trust too much a watchdog. But to have a good brownout detection is imensely important! By the way, why not combining both watchdogs, the internal and the external one? Ever done this? Kai |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| AT89C51RD2 without supervisor IC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RC is never good | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| watchdog ad absurdum | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and uses a bunch of pins | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| wd | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| paranoia revisited - wd 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| when the full story | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| WD3 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if code run astray | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Has been discussed before | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| External ones are better | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| External ones are better in one respect | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nope, never use an external when | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Combined Watchdogs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| External better in another respect | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'm using the internal and works well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| works well - how do you know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| who should test it? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nobody | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the manufacturer should | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Design Verification | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
one off | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The meaning of "well" | 01/01/70 00:00 |