On lug 03 20:15, Mouse wrote: > Then, yes, just loop. First make it work, then make it better.
Ok! I did exactly this way. > Well, be aware that DELAY() on many machines, especially for small > arguments, _is_ just a cycle-burning loop - it just multiplies the > argument by a constant calculated based on CPU speed. Yes, IIUC from the manpages, DELAY(n) uses the argument n in a similar way mstohz(9) would. > > Yes, of coure. > > If that's "of course" to you, you're not a _complete_ newbie. :-) :) I tried to follow the logic reasoning behind your text. I have some theory background, but reading code (and even more, writing it) is still a big challenge. > I'd say, just use the simple loop. Once you have that much working, > *then* worry about things like handling (pseudo-)hardware failures or > interrupts, or sleeping instead of busy-waiting. Ok, I'm relieved, because just did as you suggested. The loop works; I honestly think that the bit is cleared in a negligible amount of time, but it's right and proper to handle a failure. As a next improvement, I'll try with waiting and then with an interrupt, if I manage to. Thanks! Rocky
