On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Scott Newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 06:29 PM 8/12/2008, Hal Murray wrote: > >>USB isn't fundamentally evil. It's polled, so you won't get great response >>to something like a PPS interrupt. But the polling is handled automagically >>with modern hardware so It's not much worse (maybe better) than the typically >>interrupt batching that RS-232 chips do.
Unless you configure your RS-232 chip to not batch interrupts... > I wonder if using isochronous USB transfers would result in more > consistent latency. It'd probably suck less, but you still have a trip up and down the usb protocol stack. And I haven't seen any usb-serial converters that do control lines properly... -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too? _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
