-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Long delay in first call to interrupt #797
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
try to change the |
I think this method won't work because linker directives have higher We also need to move section renaming to a later stage, otherwise stuff On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, 23:27 Markus [email protected] wrote:
|
Here is an example that can be used to show this phenomenon. Just shortcut pin 12 and 14 My result is like this: Interrupt test started
|
Thank you for the example, the reason why this happens is totally clear.
As I see it, doing all three at the same time is tricky... Perhaps we need P.S. of course there is a simple workaround for this particular case On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 20:56 Peter Lerup [email protected] wrote:
|
I'm confident that you will come up with a good solution. Thank you so much for your fantastic work on this project! The reason for my problem is that I'm implementing a SoftwareSerial class and got problem with the very first byte when running at 115200 baud due to this. |
Hi, |
@alecapu you have code for I2S-RX? Can you share that with us so we can add it to the core? |
Hi,
I'm using the standard Arduino routines for setting up an interrupt for a GPIO pin
pinMode(RX_PIN, INPUT);
attachInterrupt(RX_PIN, rxInt, FALLING);
The problem I get is that the very first call to the interrupt routine (after system reset) has a delay of > 20 uS from the GPIO pin flank to the actual call. Any subsequent calls just have a delay of 4 uS.
If I use the SDK routines like this:
ETS_GPIO_INTR_ATTACH(intr, 0);
GPIO_REG_WRITE(GPIO_STATUS_W1TC_ADDRESS, BIT(RX_PIN));
gpio_pin_intr_state_set(GPIO_ID_PIN(RX_PIN), GPIO_PIN_INTR_NEGEDGE);
then I don't get this behavior.
Any ideas why this is so?
Thanks
/Peter
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: