[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Paparazzi-devel] adc injected vs regular channels
From: |
Piotr Esden-Tempski |
Subject: |
Re: [Paparazzi-devel] adc injected vs regular channels |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:52:16 -0700 |
Does it really have problems with high count of periphs?
I implemented a test program to sample a bunch of channels in simultanous mode
and it seems to be working fine.
Here is my implementation:
Driver: https://github.com/open-bldc/obldc2-firmware/blob/master/driver/adc.c
Test: https://github.com/open-bldc/obldc2-firmware/blob/master/test/adc_main.c
Regards,
Piotr
On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Stephen Dwyer <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Yes, and I think the major reasons for injected was 1) it prioritizes
> injected channels for very accurate timing of samples and 2) there is one
> data buffer per injected channel, which means you can sample all four and
> then move data out at the end, instead of either triggering an IRQ on each
> channel completion or using a DMA (the DMAs seem to have problems running too
> many peripherals at once...)
>
> The only major disadvantage I see is that you can only sample 4 at once.
>
> Thanks,
> -Stephen Dwyer
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Chris <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ok this is a very good reason :-)
> Chris
>
> On 08/02/2013 01:17 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> I asked once the same question. As I understand, it was a <quick and dirty>
> solution to have a working ADC without bother about DMA. It is probably even
> somewhere in to do list.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel