Timothy Normand Miller wrote:
On 5/5/07, James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What your 'analysis' fails to consider is that, if shared, that the
'sync' interrupt cannot be serviced until service of the 'service'
interrupt has completed to the point that the interrupt has been cleared
(in hardware) and interrupt is enabled. Also not considered is that
these two interrupts should have different priorities.
All of our interrupt conditions are latched and held until explicitly
cleared. If some other ISR were to get ahead of us, we would not miss
our interrupt.
Yes, I know that. The point I was trying to make was that the CPU can
only do one thing at once and that a shared interrupt can not be
serviced while the CPU is still servicing another of the interrupts that
shares the hardware interrupt. I don't know what the latency is -- you
can't predict the latency on a non-RTS.
OTOH, if the 'sync' interrupt is a separate hardware interrupt, it will
interrupt whatever is running and if it has a higher priority, the
process it starts will run before the lower priority processes.
--
JRT
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
