hello, every body i'm working with the AT89C5115 of ATMEL and i want to generate a square pulse of 40Khz using the PCA( PWM, the capture or the timer ). for the moment i coulndn't resolve the problem PCA counter registers (CL and CH) doesn't increment even activated. ? if some one have informations i'll be gratefull thanks in advance
have you even looked at the PCA cookbook? Erik
erik, i have not only seen but read the cookbook and i found that it has information only about a few philips microcontrollers whereas i need information about atmel chips. moreover the code examples given there are in assembly which i'm not able to relate much to. the codes i wrote in C are giving me error as certain sfr's are not defined in particular register files. so any information on atmel chips wud be helpful. thanks, swapna.
i found that it has information only about a few philips microcontrollers whereas i need information about atmel chips. 10 there is no info on "philips chips" in the cookbook, only Intel. Who cares, if you had taken the time to check, you would have seen that the Atmel implementation is the same (maybe with a small expansion here or there). moreover the code examples given there are in assembly which i'm not able to relate much to. Then I will not give $0.05 for you C. If you do not know the underlying workings of your controller (have made some assembler) your C will be woefully inefficient. Erik
Dear dear Erik, there is no info on "philips chips" in the cookbook, only Intel. you dont need to tell me this as it is an INTEL cookbook. i can perfectly well realise that. maybe with a small expansion here or there... i hope u realise very well that while involving urself in major projects "small expansions" play a very important role....if i cud do these small expansions myself i wudnt waste my time posting this query on the site. still i'm "thankful" for ur "valuable advice". Then I will not give $0.05 for you C. My efficiency in C does not require ur evaluation and my requirement in my project far exceeds and involves in improving the efficiency of my controller so OBVIOUSLY i'm confident in my knowledge abt my controller. Other than commenting on my efficiency i wud appreciate sum genuine TECHNICAL advice. swapna.
"you dont need to tell me this as it is an INTEL cookbook. i can perfectly well realise that." I'm curious, then, why you keep stating that it refers to Philips chips? If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you avoid using the following childish nonsense: u urself cud wudnt ur abt wud sum
Perhaps Keil could apply a spell checker for all posts onto the board, and fire an error if any SMS-speak is detected in the post. Something along the lines of "There is no 160 character limit on this board. Please use FULL words. Or go post somewhere else."
since i was not able to understand the codes it had in assembly OBVIOUSLY i'm confident in my knowledge abt my controller That "confidence" is not worth much when you can not even read assembler. Erik
I still can't get over the open acrimony toward SMS-style word abbreviation here. Did any of you that read his post actually have to stutter for even a moment to understand what he meant by those abbreviations? If not, then he's communicating effectively enough for something informal like this. People on this board make the most abhorrent grammar errors every day--including some of those who are most vocal about SMS hatred. No one spends all day correcting those, so perhaps we should just let it go.
"I still can't get over the open acrimony toward SMS-style word abbreviation here. Did any of you that read his post actually have to stutter for even a moment to understand what he meant by those abbreviations?" It took me considerably longer to read and understand his post than it would have without the SMS. English is my first language, I read it quickly without having to think about the meaning of the words. When it is riddled with SMS, however, I frequently have to stop and mentally translate the abbreviations before I can make sense of it. If English were not my first language I doubt I'd be able to make sense of it at all. "If not, then he's communicating effectively enough for something informal like this." He could communicate much more effectively if he wrote English, which he is clearly capable of, rather than SMS. Making one's question as clear and easy to understand as possible is the best way to elicit a useful response, and shows that one at least has some respect for those one is asking for free advice from. "People on this board make the most abhorrent grammar errors every day--including some of those who are most vocal about SMS hatred. No one spends all day correcting those" Of course. The essential difference, though, is that grammatical errors are unintentional, whereas use of SMS is a conscious decision. That is why nobody wastes time correcting them. You'll notice that some posters don't have a very good grasp of English - nobody criticises them either. In fact, I make a lot of effort to try to understand broken English. "so perhaps we should just let it go." In some cases I don't think so. Generally I just ignore posts that contain a lot of SMS, but when the poster combines this with a refusal to take the advice he's been given I sometimes feel the need to say something.
Jay, I still can't get over the open acrimony toward SMS-style word abbreviation here. Did any of you that read his post actually have to stutter for even a moment to understand what he meant by those abbreviations? Yes, I had to decipher, rather than read. Many have stated "I write SMS because it is faster to write" OK, so you one save some time and the many readers will have to spend more time deciphering your message. Thus someone using SMS is, in fact saying "my time is more valuable than all other members of the forum combined". People on this board make the most abhorrent grammar errors every day-- Sure, but that is not done intentionally to save time at the cost of others. Erik
It took me considerably longer to read and understand his post than it would have without the SMS. English is my first language, I read it quickly without having to think about the meaning of the words. When it is riddled with SMS, however, I frequently have to stop and mentally translate the abbreviations before I can make sense of it. If English were not my first language I doubt I'd be able to make sense of it at all. Perhaps that's the flaw in my thinking. I assume that since I can scan through it at the same rate as standard English, then everyone else can as well. Also, I think the claim about non-native English speakers having more difficulty with SMS abbreviations is dubious. I would wager that swapna has a high probability of falling into that category himself (based solely on his name), but he seems to find it easier. My guess is that as internet and other forms of text based communications between continents become commonplace, these abbreviations will become a part of the worldwide English that people use. Think of it as a sort of Esperanto for people who don't want to wear out their thumbs using their blackberry. :) Of course. The essential difference, though, is that grammatical errors are unintentional, whereas use of SMS is a conscious decision. That is why nobody wastes time correcting them. You'll notice that some posters don't have a very good grasp of English - nobody criticises them either. In fact, I make a lot of effort to try to understand broken English. I'm not sure this sort of unintentional mistake is somehow more benign. For isntance, plenty of people don't know the appropriate situations to use your or you're. They never learned it, and they just choose whichever they like when they feel like it. Someone who KNOWS that they don't know it well enough, however, might just use "ur" in both situations knowing that they'll be conveying their intent clearly enough in either case. I guess I just find the former more irritating. "To each his own" I suppose.
Someone who KNOWS that they don't know it well enough, however, might just use "ur" in both situations knowing that they'll be conveying their intent clearly enough in either case. Clearly??? How can microresistor be a clear representation of your? It is NOT that I can not understand it, it IS that when I see $#|+ like this I have to stop and think, not about the problem the poster tries to describe, but about the word(s) (s)he uses. I am not a "native english speaker" and I am sure that I make gramatical errors now and then, but for me (the "non-native english speaker") A gramattical error is not a problem in reading whereas "it is a 4gone tht Ur msg r a rply" will take me an effort to read, thus often missing what the message is trying to convey. I will, however agree that a post with 4 times "you" and one "u" should be considered a freudian slip and not an insult. Erik
plenty of people don't know the appropriate situations to use your or you're. They never learned it, and they just choose whichever they like when they feel like it. Someone who KNOWS that they don't know it well enough, however, might just use "ur" in both situations knowing that they'll be conveying their intent clearly enough in either case. non-native, I may state the right as the wrong and the wrong as the right, but here we go: If I write "I value your opinion" and the correct would be "I value you're opinion" is the a problem with conveying my intent bigger that if I wrote "I value ur opinion" Erik
"Also, I think the claim about non-native English speakers having more difficulty with SMS abbreviations is dubious." If the non-native speaker is familiar with SMS I agree, if not it's just another difficulty to deal with. "My guess is that as internet and other forms of text based communications between continents become commonplace, these abbreviations will become a part of the worldwide English that people use." I've seen a lot of discussion on Usenet about the reasons why adults, particularly those from the Indian sub-continent, use SMS abbreviations in normal written communication and the concensus seems to be that they do it because they think it is a 'kewl' thing they have copied from the British and Americans. "I'm not sure this sort of unintentional mistake is somehow more benign. For isntance, plenty of people don't know the appropriate situations to use your or you're. They never learned it, and they just choose whichever they like when they feel like it. Someone who KNOWS that they don't know it well enough, however, might just use "ur" in both situations knowing that they'll be conveying their intent clearly enough in either case." That's quite an elaborate justification for 'ur', but it can't be applied to any of the other bits of SMS speak I pulled out of that post (unless you can imagine 'you'reself' being a word): u urself cud wudnt abt wud sum 'sum' instead of 'some' really is ridiculous. It doesn't just obfuscate the text, it changes the meaning.
non-native, I may state the right as the wrong and the wrong as the right, but here we go: If I write "I value your opinion" and the correct would be "I value you're opinion" is the a problem with conveying my intent bigger that if I wrote "I value ur opinion" No... my assertion is that they're both about on-par as far as the affect to readability they cause. As such, my assertion is that we should just let them BOTH go rather than cluttering up threads with reprobation about someone's style of writing. (Or, for that matter, cluttering up the thread like I have with a debate :)