On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:10 PM Matias N. <mat...@imap.cc> wrote: > I'm okay with ns jitter. I need to satisfy a 150uS timing response, so > that is OK. > > Outside the context of RTOSs, isn't this just defining your own interrupt > handler? Maybe > it should be called "custom interrupt handler"? >
Well I think Zero Latency Interrupt is a better name because it calls out that it's for these tight timing requirements. A name like Custom Interrupt Handler doesn't really convey the timing aspect of it, but maybe Tight Timing Interrupt or Really Super Duper Urgent Interrupt. I wouldn't recommend to change the name at this time unless we come up with a really good name. We might want to look at the docs and see if what Greg just explained a few minutes ago is documented there. Cheers Nathan
