Re: A86: Batt Checker
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A86: Batt Checker
>
>Dux Gregis wrote:
>> ...
>> interrupts to occur. Interestingly, in order for this to work, the clock
>> controlling the interrupt must be independent of the clock controlling
the
>> rest of the cpu and not as adversly affected by battery power as the rest
of
>> the overall performance is ... maybe an accurate clock is possible after
>> all.
>
The main CPU clock becomes slower because it is used much more frequently
... it has to send signals out all the time. The interrupt clock, though,
only has to send signals once every interrupt.
The CPU clock must increment once every t-state where the interrupt clock
(I'm not completely sure about this) is controlled by a less power intensive
_external_ clock. Everything runs on the same batteries, so the things in
hardware that consume the least amount of power are going to be the most
accurate.
> Or maybe it's the other way around, the processor clock is fix and
> the interrupt clock may vary. Would you like to see your calc getting
> slower as the batterys get weaker? On the other way, is that bad if
> the keyboard is read 50 times a second (just example) instead of
> 100 times a second?
> What is it that the routine considers a 'bad BC value', high values
> or low values? If a bad value is a low count, that means the processor
> is getting slower, if a bad value is a high value, that the interrupt
> frequency is getting slower. I guess it's all said.
>
> NSJ aka Viriato
> l41324@alfa.ist.utl.pt
> nmasj@camoes.rnl.ist.utl.pt
Follow-Ups: