Re: A86: 86 interrupts?

To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A86: 86 interrupts?
From: Dux Gregis <assets@eden.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 12:22:58 -0600
Delivered-To: assembly-86-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
References: <8ed37936.35a1de98@aol.com> <35A22CD9.F2B9B2AC@flash.net>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org




Bryan Rittmeyer wrote:

> TGaArdvark@aol.com wrote:
> > First of all, that's not the best proof.  Silent linking, CBL com-
> > munication, and TI-Basic variable transfer are also disabled
> > during graphing.  Second, you may be right about it being
> > _getkey.  I truthfully have no clue what routine it is.  But if
> > it is _getkey, then _getkey happens to be the linkport
> > interrupt he was looking for.  I didn't say there was a
> > separate linkport interrupt.  I just said there was one.
> > Thirdly, what does _getkey have to do with the link and
> > why would TI have it handle the linkport?
>
> Well, something is obviously playing with the link port in the
> middle of my program. I connected the calculator to a simple
> AVR program setup to acknowledge all incoming bits and then to
> send what the other calculator is doing to the || port.. a
> makeshift logic analyzer program is showing that something is
> DEFINITELY playing with the link port, because behavior is
> extremely eratic. _getkey is never called by my program except
> to pause but I am not attempting any kind of link activity
> when the program is paused (waiting for a key) and the link
> port should be inactive ($C0). I'll give the di a try and if
> that fails I'll replace all of the _getkey calls with my own
> lame pause routine that uses GET_KEY.

Why don't you do this after the _getkey call:  out (7),$c0

References:

Re: A86: 86 interrupts?

From: TGaArdvark@aol.com

Re: A86: 86 interrupts?

From: Bryan Rittmeyer <bryanr@flash.net>