Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
08/13/10 16:17
Read: times


 
#177991 - Do I understand this correctly...
Responding to: ???'s previous message

... from posts like this http://www.8052.com/forum/read/174600 the implication is that a high priority interrupt cannot interrupt a low priority interrupt?

If so, that contradicts an awful lot of information about on the web (including this very site http://www.8052.com/tutint.phtml )

8052.com said:
For example, you may have enabled Timer 1 Interrupt which is automatically called every time Timer 1 overflows. Additionally, you may have enabled the Serial Interrupt which is called every time a character is received via the serial port. However, you may consider that receiving a character is much more important than the timer interrupt. In this case, if Timer 1 Interrupt is already executing you may wish that the serial interrupt itself interrupts the Timer 1 Interrupt. When the serial interrupt is complete, control passes back to Timer 1 Interrupt and finally back to the main program. You may accomplish this by assigning a high priority to the Serial Interrupt and a low priority to the Timer 1 Interrupt.




List of 9 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
the "interrupt priority list"            01/01/70 00:00      
   latency calculation            01/01/70 00:00      
      but            01/01/70 00:00      
         Do I understand this correctly...            01/01/70 00:00      
            priority (IP) and 'polling sequence" (the chip)            01/01/70 00:00      
               how to interpret "interrupts occuring at the same time            01/01/70 00:00      
         sequence can't be influenced            01/01/70 00:00      
            no, it is 'random' because ..            01/01/70 00:00      
               latency calculation            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List