[En-Nut-Discussion] AVR: Use of _delay_loop_2 versus nut_delay_loops
bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Thu Sep 27 13:51:44 CEST 2012
>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Kipp <harald.kipp at egnite.de> writes:
Harald> Hi Uwe, On 24.09.2012 14:17, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
>> in SVN Head for NutMicroDelay for AVR, I replaces the usage of
>> nut_delay_loops with all it's magic constants with a call to the
>> avr-libc supplied _delay_loop_2() Funktion. Beside setup, the
>> functions eats 4 cycle for each pass. This change made the BitBanging
>> One-Wire example work with AVR too.
>> Please let me know if I broke anything.
Harald> It doesn't work for AVR devices, which automatically detect
Harald> their CPU frequency and do not have NUT_CPU_FREQ defined.
Harald> Furthermore, there seem to be other problems with AVR as well,
Harald> possibly introduced by
Harald> #if !defined(NUT_DELAYLOOPS) && !defined(__AVR) &&
Harald> where two underscores are missing.
I checked in two changes for that subject. They fix the __AVR versus __AVR__
and handle the loop calculation when NUT_CPU_FREQ is not defined.
However a setup without NUT_CPU_FREQ only works with MCU_ATMEGA103 and
MCU_ATMEGA128. This is caused by the special timer setup for CountCpuLoops()
in arch/avr/dev/ostimer.c in
#ifdef NUT_CPU_FREQ /* ----- NUT_CPU_FREQ */
I don't have a test setup with these CPUs. And to understand to logic
used there is some bigger effort.
Can you please report back?
Uwe Bonnes bon at elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion