On 6/10/2013 6:18 PM, Manu Abraham wrote:
>
> The whole idea of bitbanging, polling etc is useless in this context:
> I could've used a Timer and polled the encoder pins (only a single encode=
r
> is used), but then the system cannot be taxed to do additional polling, a=
s
> I wrote originally, it is doing quite some other work too..
You don't have to use a timer or polling in the setup I described. The=20
whole point is you do it whenever there are free cycles because it isn't=20
critical the value is checked every 1ms, etc. It can be checked 1ms this=20
time and 3ms the next because you don't need to catch the changes.

>   The conceptt of adding separate chips and additional
> microcontrollers are pointless. In the old days, when computing power
> was very limited, it was acceptable to add chips for each and everything,
> but in the new world, most likely you can pack some of the features that
> you find in dedicated chips, directly into a micro, which has some free
> resources that can be used for an additional functionality.
> Yes, we can keep on adding hardware more and more, but that is not an
> effecient way of doing things. Isn't it ?
>
If it were pointless the only thing sold would be micro controllers.
It is easier to design a product when you compartmentalize the areas=20
into their functions . You can do that in software somewhat but that=20
isn't always the easiest way to approach a problem. I would rather have=20
a separate part sending me the information I need vs trying to integrate=20
that same function into routines that are already timing sensitive.  Its=20
great when a single chip can do everything but rarely have I found chips=20
that can do all the functions needed and it usually increases cost to do so=
..
Mark

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.