• State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 1133 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
How was your experience today?
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Interrupts not through vector table ?

Terje Bohler

Hello.

As stated previously, I'm not not very familiar with ARM/Keil uV4.
My problem: My PIT interrupt service routine: "__irq ISR_Pit()" seems to:
1) Beeing executed WITHOUT beeing routed/executed through the VECTOR table.
2) When executed once, PC simply returns to start of ISR_Pit() for another round of execution (with "terrible consequences" thereafter ....).

Q1: Isn't ALL interrupts/exceptions to be executed via/through the VECTOR table ?
Q2: I assume the definition/declaration "void __irq ISR_Pit(void)" is sufficient to ensure register bank switching so PC returns back to normal execution after executing this interrupt service routine?

Regards Terje Bøhler

Parents
  • 0 in reply to Terje Bohler

    You think it might be helpful to provide both sides of the transaction? ie Where you set up the interrupt, and where you service it?

    I'm pretty sure the ATMEL part acts very much like all the other ARM7 implementations with regards to registers, stacks, and interrupt context. Got to be a vast array of documentation and examples out there.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Terje Bohler

    You think it might be helpful to provide both sides of the transaction? ie Where you set up the interrupt, and where you service it?

    I'm pretty sure the ATMEL part acts very much like all the other ARM7 implementations with regards to registers, stacks, and interrupt context. Got to be a vast array of documentation and examples out there.

Children
No data