Timeline for How to implement a pulse counter for two clocks on Nano Every?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28 at 11:15 | comment | added | Edgar Bonet |
@Mo_: Re "Do you think a busy loop would perform better": a busy loop calling digitalRead() may not be any better, as that function is pretty slow. With digitalReadFast(), the busy loop will most likely work fine... until you call Serial.print(), and that method starts doing a (slow) binary-to-decimal conversion.
|
|
| May 28 at 11:03 | comment | added | Mo_ | Had a look at timers and ISRs. I'll simply go for a faster processor or buy pre-made HW. Would be fun to implement on Arduino but ATM don't have the time unfortunately. | |
| May 28 at 7:04 | comment | added | the busybee |
@Mo_ If you can limit the range of the counters, using a smaller data type like unsigned char could reduce the number of cycles spent in the ISRs.
|
|
| May 28 at 7:02 | comment | added | the busybee | @Mo_ For verifying the theory, you could toggle a pin during the ISRs. Make sure to use the library digitalWriteFast that compiles functions with constant pin numbers into a single machine instruction. Then use your oscilloscope. | |
| May 27 at 18:57 | comment | added | Questor | @Mo_ It would not, possible fixes, do the edge counting in hardware. Or get a faster processor. | |
| May 27 at 15:07 | comment | added | Mo_ | If it's necessary, I could study it. However, it's just a helper, I want it to be easy to understand for people unfamiliar with arduino. So I'll look for a simpler solution first. Thanks for outlining the overhead. Do you think a busy loop would perform better? | |
| May 27 at 9:50 | history | answered | Edgar Bonet | CC BY-SA 4.0 |