AVR-Chat

At 11:33 AM 7/5/2005, arhodes19044 wrote:
>I agree with brain bashing.  BUT.....
>
>It feels like I bashed my brain as I tried to follow these rules,
>and I eventually decided that I MUST have ONE item in one of my
>applications that I MUST do from within an "interrupt"
>
>But there is another display which does not need updating very
>often, but it MUST be updated every so often (I am using one
>second).  It will take a "long" time (for an interrupt), but much
>less than a second.  So, re-entrancy is not an issue.  Other
>critical interrupts will occur and must be processed in the interim,
>but the foreground task can probably wait.

So why not set a flag, saying that it is time to update the second 
display, and let a foreground routine do that, while the other ints happen?
If it's really huge, you might need to break it up into sections, so 
that other foreground tasks can complete.
Avoid like the plague, any "sit and spin" delays.


>I do this to create pseudo multitasking, but without time-slicing.
>For this to work, the interrupt needs to complete fast enough to
>avoid re-entrancy (i.e. less than a second), but more importantly,
>it needs to be fast enough to avoid being too obvious to the user of
>the foreground task.

Cooperative multitasking, I use it all the time.