Lately Magnus Eriksson told:
> I've read what Matt said:
>> (TIMER0 is our fine-grained timer interrupt but TIMER1/TIMER2 is
>> set
>> to a full-count and serves as the timebase for the whole system).
> ..but I'm not sure I get it. So timer <not 0> is set for a longer
> interval (for stability?) and timer 0 works "as usual"?
>
> But if I remember correctly, you don't have to reload the timers once
> they are set up, so you have the long-term stability anyway,
>
> Or can timer 0 can be set for very short intervals, and timer <not 0>
> is
> the one that "runs the OS" N times per sec?
>
>
> A simple non-technical answer will do. Or just point me in the
> direction of some part of the source that'll explain it. (I did try to
> find it, but boot code .. sigh.)
i think timer1/timer2 are for one-shot timers in comparsion to the
steady timebase like timer0 is doing.
cheers
simon
--
/"\ http://corecode.ath.cx/#donate
\ /
\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail and News