Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:26:26 -0900 (AKST) From: hmmm <hmmm@alaska.net> To: freebsd-hackers <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ints Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.93.970102194930.22753B-100000@calvino.alaska.net> In-Reply-To: <199701021134.WAA16141@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > Please don't go inventing your own terminology in order to prove > yourself "right". If you are responding to an interrupt, you are not > "polling" as such. hehe! i'm not! interrupts - in a pure form - implies random activity. if i'm using interrupts under polled conditions - the interrupts are timed - not random - how else can i distinguish ??? that was the whole point of my question ... > > MAY change - or DOES change ? is it usually a circuit outside of CPU > > concerns? do INT status flags change EXACTLY as the condition is removed? > > "may" change. If you really want the low-down on how much UART > implementations vary, search the FreeBSD mailing list archives for > mention of a program called COMTEST in a message from Frank Durda. > Basically, there is very little that you can actually count on. thanks - i'll check it out .. :) > inactive to active. It is the processor's responsibility to > manipulate the peripheral so that the input goes inactive again. If > it fails to do so, there will be no more interrupts from it. Finito. hehe! well - if things are so screwed up - you shouldn't be too angry with me for being at a loss for the facts. i couldn't find the "details" in data sheets. i thought things were more sane. i sure appreciate all the time you took to assist me!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.93.970102194930.22753B-100000>