 | | Re: light sensor problem?
|
|
(...) (URL) > I doubt we need this very fast reading of sensors. This makes implementing (...) Yes, when we have user space timers... (...) This is correct, but there are many good reasons for keeping assembly low bandwidth, like pitfalls in (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Ideas for 0.2.5 (was: Re: Possible bug with bss allocation)
|
|
(...) Shure, no problem. (...) While we are at it, I have two other major changes in mind: - Implement timers. A timer would install a callback function with a private to the caller void * argument. This callback function is called at the timers (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: light sensor problem?
|
|
(...) :) Bad is, of course, all relative... (...) Yes, though IMHO fast = good. It allows us to do things with legOS that might not be doable with other firmwares. (...) I'm not sure which comments you are referring to- do you have a URL for the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: light sensor problem?
|
|
(...) It doesn't surprise me that someone has already worked this out. (...) It really, really doesn't surprise me that Michael was the one who worked it out. If no one thinks it is too big an overhead, I can put it in in an hour or so when I do a (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: light sensor problem?
|
|
(...) Oh! So readings are more stable, and it isn't just my imagination. That's good to know :) (...) Those values used to pretty cleanly define max and min- or at least, they must have, since I consistently got 15-105 values (or roughly what he (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
