On 26 February 2016 at 14:54, Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 2016/2/26 20:53, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I don't understand why a 500ms pulse is better than a short one. >> > Oh, I just pick a value which seems like a real latency for pressing a > button. What's your suggestion?
I would prefer to avoid the pain of having a timer whose state needs to be migrated. It's unclear to me why a 500ms pulse will solve anything that an instantaneous pulse does not, so I'd like to better understand the problem first. thanks -- PMM
