On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:59:02 +0000 Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One big patch for stable-tracking update is fine, thanks for looking > at it. At least they are on a common bitbang basis now... OK, I'll look at this (unless Nelson or someone else beats me to it ;-)) > How is the performance about them stopping servicing interrupts at the > moment from your experience? Sen McNeil had some changes to the GPIO > actions in the bitbang which he reckoned removed the loss of data > completely, I am not sure the various rebasings and branches have kept > what he did... Seans fixes switched the interrupts to level-triggering? Anyway, I've not seen any problems with missed interrupts apart from (maybe!) the resume case since you added the bitbang-all-the-way patches. However, I'm not exactly a heavy user either. I just test the accelerometers with the example python script from the wiki. // Simon
