Hi, 2011/1/25 Oliver Seitz <[email protected]>:
> Stop the clock, set the time to somewhen in the future, wait for that set > time to arrive, and start the clock exactly then, Good idea: it would be wise to stop the clock before setting it and start it afterwards in any case. I'm not sure if acual waiting after setting the time adds much. The sequence probably takes less than 2ms (3 i2c messages?) and the clock resolution is 1 second... > Another, quite slow possibility would be to read the seconds again and again > *until* they change. Then you'll have one second within no carry can occur to > read the other values. This means it could take up to 1001 ms to read the clock, assume the read itself takes 1 ms... Joep -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
