| ??? 04/26/07 13:24 Read: times |
#138008 - danger, maybe, loss of efficiency YES ABSOLUTELY!! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Is there any danger if the transmission (fetching 1 byte from FIFO and placing to SBUF when TI is set) is done in the scheduller instead of doing it in the serial vector interrupt?
Danger, maybe (see below), loss of efficiency YES ABSOLUTELY!!! you will reduce the byte rate to about half. The advantages of such solution is that I have more controll over my program. Horsefeathers mixed with male cow manure But is it possible that such scenario would in some case not work? yes, some devices can not tolerate large gaps between characters, you can, of course, 'test' and then 'believe' that no such unit will ever be connected to your thingy. BTW why do you muck around with a "scheduller" (sic), that is the easiest way to kill a '51 due to the architecture being TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY the worst poissible for such. If you can not live without your scheduler (which I know you can), use another chip. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Serial transmission in scheduller instead of int | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| danger, maybe, loss of efficiency YES ABSOLUTELY!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| avoiding interrupts means... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Scheduller.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is no such thing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Limitation API | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| API? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes ASIC design fixed... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| debug possibilities? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Monitor is nice idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 1ms vs 1.04ms | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| absolutely NOT | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ok but 1 byte is transmitted together | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if it does, then you need to KISS | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I took the 1ms processing tick for granted... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks for the inputs... | 01/01/70 00:00 |