Hi Radek Pesina,
This may be way off base but, have you tried reverting
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/commit/7312a553bbc40f3771c5d53ccded89bed7391f2a
It release the CPU but traded that for potentially quantized large delays
David
-Original Message-
From: Radek Pesina
Sent: Wednesday,
This may be way off base but, have you tried reverting
https://github.com/apache/nuttx/commit/7312a553bbc40f3771c5d53ccded89bed7391f2a
It release the CPU but traded that for potentially quantized large delays
Yes, I would expect the up_udelay to be in error by about about 0.5 uS
(provided t
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 12:35 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> > This may be way off base but, have you tried reverting
> >
> https://github.com/apache/nuttx/commit/7312a553bbc40f3771c5d53ccded89bed7391f2a
> >
> > It release the CPU but traded that for potentially quantized large delays
>
> Yes, I would
That would help when tickless mode is used. But what about tickful mode? I
guess the intent of 7312a553b was to avoid wasting processor cycles on busy
waiting, but if tickless isn't being used, perhaps busy waiting is
necessary here? It could choose between the two wait types at compile time
ba
