 | | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Mark Riley wrote: > Actually, if we move the sys_time > handler back to OCRA (instead of the watchdog NMI), > then we could just check if bit 0 of sys_time is zero to > determine if the subsystem handler should be called (plus > this will get (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Yes Kekoa it's a bottle neck, as I wrote on the original message, the main idea is to distribute the load, with the MINIMUM amount of network traffic. I think that all the RCX should be connected through fibre optics, in order to implement the (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
Hi Marc, (...) Nice idea, but wouldn't that result in at least one of four cycles beeing blocked by OCRA? or is our system interrupt finished within less than 250msec? (...) Right, that was what I did for my Lepomux patch - works fine. Gunther (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting BrickOS Timing Results
|
|
(...) My thought was that the OCRA interrupt could be used as the general 1ms interrupt and the subsystem handler (which is currently using OCRB) could be called every other time from the OCRA handler by using a flag (toggled every 1ms). Actually, (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: DISTRIBUTED/PARALLEL CLUSTER for legOS through n*RCX
|
|
Last year I built a robot which used multiple RCXs in the way you mention. I was building a sumo wrestling battle bot, and at some point ran out of sensor ports. For my sumo bot I'd built up some small abstraction layers around the sensors and (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jan-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
