|
|
 | | Re: LNP-problem...
|
| (...) ok this is the (relevant) code running on the rcx: int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char *p; init(); execi(&PacketWatcher, 0, NULL, PRIO_NORMAL, DEFAULT_STACK_SIZE); execi(&Messenger, 0, NULL, PRIO_LOWEST, DEFAULT_STACK_SIZE); return 0; } (...) (22 years ago, 21-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Motor Control Register (0xf000)
|
| (...) It's the one I meant, thanks. Jürgen (22 years ago, 21-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Why...
|
| Nick, Setting the timeslice to a low number (5ms is fairly low), negetively effects overall system performance. Time used by the operating system for task switching is taken away from applications. If a switch takes .5ms (for example) and you switch (...) (22 years ago, 21-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Why...
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ... is the minimum timeslice interval 5ms? I'm writing a program that needs a routine to be run every 1ms for a period of time. I did this by setting it as the timeslice handler, but then I needed to (...) (22 years ago, 16-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | Re: Motor Control Register (0xf000)
|
| (...) Yeah, I missed that, I'll add that to the notes. (...) Too bad they didn't document the hole well enough to make it obvious to the people at Lego, who apparently had no idea. They use "mov.w rx,@0xf000:16" all over the place instead of the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
