??? 04/26/07 13:50 Read: times |
#138016 - Scheduller.... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
...I need because I have to do things that should happen separate from the application (i.e. special processing and radio transmission like repeating).
And these things HAVE to run paralel. I really can't see any other option as doing some kind of cooperative tasks with the help of timer. +the whole implementation is stucked into an API so the scheduller is running there, without any knowledge what the mighty application is doing. And I pray that '51 architecture can live with it. Have no other options it's the core of an ASIC, and trust me it was not my decission to use it (although I like this micro very much). Anyway if Keil managed to do an RTOS with scheduller for '51, why wouldn't it work for me if I build one (without preemtion, context switch etc.)? To Jan: p.s. Slovak beer is good enough for me, but I decided, why not to learn German :) And yeah unfortunately I had to leave C and dive into ASM after realising the fact that a C compiler lives his own life and it must not always be in a way I want. So any asm vs C commentars are welcome. |
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 |