Lpc2000

Brendan,

If there is a question for me here, please tell me what it is.  If not, I 
hope you will forgive me for ignoring this post.

Kind regards,

Jaya

--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "brendanmurphy37" <brendan.murphy@...> wrote:
 >
 > Jaya,
 >
 > I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't claiming
 > that your solution for UART interrupts didn't work. Also, I'm aware
 > of how to write UART drivers that don't use interrupts. I have the
 > good fortune to be part of a team of excellent engineers who can
 > assist if required: no help needed thanks!
 >
 > My point was that if there's an issue with some feature (in this case
 > UART receive interrupts), it's no real solution just to say "don't
 > use the feature". This isn't to say that you can't get a working
 > system that doesn't use the feature. Sorry if this wasn't totally
 > clear.
 >
 > The fact is that most people will already have some form of interrupt-
 > driven UART driver to hand when they come to the LPC2000 series,
 > particularly as the UARTs are compatible with industry standard
 > registers etc. Hence my observation about practicality: it's a bit
 > much to ask them to completely rewrite drivers to avoid interrupts,
 > particularly when other solutions to the issue exist that don't
 > require such radical change.
 >
 > If you and your clients want to implement any solution you like, I've
 > absolutely no problem with it, nor with validating or proving it
 > incorrect. I don't have the time, and I'm really not that interested.
 > I'm happy for you. Honestly!
 >
 > This is an open forum however, and I presume you'd accept that it's
 > open for anyone to put forward to alternative viewpoints and
 > solutions to issues as they see them? Particularly if those solutions
 > are somewhat simpler in both scope and realisation.
 >
 > Which brings me to my second point, and again, I'm assuming there's
 > some sort of misunderstanding involved.
 >
 > Some time ago, I posted my own observations and proposed solution for
 > spurious interrupts. I'm not claiming authorship of the solution by
 > the way: all I was doing was trying to summarise information
 > available elsewhere and the key points as I saw them. See:
 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpc2000/message/14342
 > This is not the same as app note AN10414, which is what you seem to
 > think I'm proposing (according to your statement below). I even
 > included in the post the entire source code for the solution – all
 > four lines of it. You immediately came back and said that what I was
 > proposing wouldn't work. I've been trying ever since to find out what
 > exactly is the problem you see with it. Is there some failure mode
 > you can describe where it doesn't work? is there some test you've
 > done that shows it failing? My interest in persisting with this
 > enquiry (and apologies for everyone reading all of this for the
 > repetition involved) is that the solution is in use: if it's likely
 > to fail I'd like to know about it. If there is some flaw, I have no
 > problem in acknowledging it and adopting some other alternative
 > solution (yours or someone else's).
 >
 > I've no interest in changing your or anyone else's mind or playing
 > politics (or trading insults and abuse come to that). I'm not looking
 > for advice, free or otherwise. Just in establishing two simple points:
 >
 > - there are alternative viewpoints and solutions
 >
 > - if there's a problem with a solution I'm using, I'd like to know
 > what it is
 >
 > That's all really.
 >
 > Best wishes
 >
 > Brendan

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com