Carlos, I'd let what you have run for several days, to see if it works out for you. Before making an absolute decision. It seems in your eyes that interrupts are the best solution, and I can not say I disagree with that. Assuming the code is fast enough.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Carlos Novaes <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everyone. Just for an update: PROBLEM SOLVED! > > There was a couple of lines from an ancient version of the code running at > the PRU side, that I forgot (failed) to remove. Under some conditions the > timestamp was not incremented, or incremented twice. Now, everything is > working good with the interrupt signaling, but based on this discussion I > am now aware that there may be some other points to consider in order to > prevent failures. > > Thank you, > > Carlos Novaes > > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
