This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sourceware.org mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Re: In trouble of timer operations


> From: ariga masahiro
>
> Thank you,Paul,for valuable suggestion.
> I re_calculated by toggling LED and measured signal's duration on
> osilloscope.
>
> result
> (1) only used cyg_thread_delay(2)                -- 20.2millisec
> (2) cyg_thread_delay(1),cyg_thread_delay(2)      -- 30.1millisec
> (3) same as (2) except changed cyg_thread_delay(2) to
> yg_thread_delay(20)  -- 212millisec
> (4) only used cyg_thread_delay(20)               -- 201millisec
>
> I am confirmed in thinking that since
> CYGNUM_HAL_RTC_DENOMINATOR=100, system
> clock is running 100Hz,1 tick perid = 10millisec,and if I wish to
> run system
> clock 200Hz I should change CYGNUM_HAL_RTC_DENOMINATOR to 200.
>
> But according to your mail, it raised another puzzlement.
>
> > However, you won't find it out very easily with diag_printf, because it
> > probably takes longer than 10ms to execute.
>
> At first,I couldn't get it. Because if diag_printf takes over
> 10ms, simply
> calculated results ought be longer,
> but on the contrary it took far shorter than expected.
>
> So I deliberately inserted
> HAL_CLOCK_READ1(&start);
> diag_printf("id=hi 0x%x\n",start);
> in above each test(after led_toggle function) and investigated how it
> affects duration time.
> To my very astonishment as far as looking signals on osilloscope
> there are
> no differences !
> Two functions takes no time at all as far as looking to signals.

Well, then the diag_printf is running fast enough on your system. That
depends upon the bit rate. On a system running at 115200, outputting 18
characters takes about 1.5ms, which is short enough, but running at 9600
takes 19ms, which would cause a problem.

If your loop is running at the right rate according to the scope, but your
diag_printf messages show something different, then it sounds like you've
proven that your HAL hardware clock isn't running at the speed you think it
is.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]