Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!

Search:

Type: Posts; User: defragster

Search: Search took 0.02 seconds.

  1. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    Good it works! I thought you had hardware to...

    Good it works! I thought you had hardware to test on Teensy, I wasn't worried about ATMEL.

    Wasn't sure if this was for generic lib change or for your purposes when #ifdef would be needed.
  2. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    Both F_CPU_ACTUAL and delayNanoseconds are new...

    Both F_CPU_ACTUAL and delayNanoseconds are new for T_4 and only #ifdef __1062__

    But that seems reasonable to test with. Though not sure how close delayNanoseconds(10) is to accurate for that low...
  3. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    Opps - I thought you had hardware in front of you...

    Opps - I thought you had hardware in front of you testing it to see it run to observe and select the delay time in action.
  4. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    With T4 having runtime changeable F_CPU an #ifdef...

    With T4 having runtime changeable F_CPU an #ifdef would not be perfect - adding a runtime conditional would be time consuming too.

    Thought a test of that code at 24 and 800 MHz would quickly show...
  5. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    Indeed the time is fixed - but the bus timing...

    Indeed the time is fixed - but the bus timing changes for the write speed?
  6. Replies
    59
    Views
    8,731

    @Frank - what about alternate F_CPU_ACTUAL...

    @Frank - what about alternate F_CPU_ACTUAL timings? Does the same delay work at 24 and 800 MHz?
Results 1 to 6 of 6