| ??? 10/06/11 08:54 Read: times |
#184097 - May be better - but not essential Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Maunik Choksi said:
While you go through the changing speed type code you must (sic) go through timers. No, that is not true. You certainly could use a timer - but it is by no means essential that you use a timer. Judging from the state of the code, it's probably an extra complication that the OP doesn't need right now! As Per says, simply using a variable to control a delay loop would be perfectly adequate here: http://www.8052.com/forumchat/read/184095 |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Speed control of running light | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Please insert the legible source code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| comments | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| please suggest some idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Better to use timer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| May be better - but not essential | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ok that 's fine | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hw-timers for delays | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there doesn't seem to be any other tasks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not uncommon to have | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no, you don't | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you have pullups on P0? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ***__HORRIBLE CODE__*** | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This Problem Shouts "Use a Table" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
new tutorial needed | 01/01/70 00:00 |