??? 06/05/10 20:04 Read: times |
#176436 - Thanks for the correction... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Hi Konstantinos,
Thanks for pointing out the flaw in the compile-time timer reload value calculation example that I had hastily posted. I was too anxious to promote a mention-worthy(?), though, in my observation, under utilised coding practice, and rushed to post a 'merely' illustrative example. I felt sure it needed review, hence the caveat, and I was very glad to have your definitive perspective in the reload calculation matter. Hmm...it seems I may be spoilt in terms of the powerful compile-time processing capabilities of the Keil C51 compiler, to which I have grown accustomed. With my admittedly narrow-spectrum of toolset experience, I wasn't aware that other compilers were as limited as it appears them may be. Perhaps this is why I so frequently see source code examples with 'hard-coded', as opposed to compile-time calculated, program parameters. Thanks also for your valuable tip regarding the use of a spreadsheet during software development, Konstantinos. I have recently made good use of Excel during an exploration of baud-rate calculation options. After a productive result, I am now firmly convinced of the superiority of the spreadsheet analytical method, especially over the more conventional employment of pad, pencil and calculator. Regards, Murray R. Van Luyn. |
Topic | Author | Date |
80C52 Timer0 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
where is the EA initialize? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
EA initialize | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
no reason in what you show | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
TL0 and TH0 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Calculations for Timer T0 at 8KHz: have you tried 0xFF8D ??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
correction | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yeah - 0x8D | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks for that typo, More for 8KHz with 50% duty cycle | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Put the compiler to work... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
fine, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
T0 overflows at 65535+1, don't overlook this | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
right answer, wrong premise | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Exact calculations require semantics | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
you are welcome to find out | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Thanks for the correction...![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 |