Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: Valter Minute <v_a_l_t_e_r.m_i_n_u_t_e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:05:13 -0800
shiju <mshiju@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:4581BBB5.1090906@xxxxxxxxx:
Hi,
I am new to wince and was just worried whether the Sleep()
function would affect the performance of the system. Is this the
only way to implement polling in wince 5.0 drivers.
It's the polling, not Sleep that can impact system performances.
But since you have no ways to avoid it, keep it very simple and very
fast. For example if you have an I2C controller that can generate
interrupts, use them and do not poll the I2C controller status using a
busy loop. In this way the CPU could be used by other thread while
you're sending/receiving data on your I2C device and the impact of your
polling will be reduced.
--
Valter Minute
(the reply address of this message is invalid)
(l'indirizzo di reply di questo messaggio non è valido)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: Sue Loh [MS]
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- References:
- Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: shiju
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: Henrik Viklund
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: shiju
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: Henrik Viklund
- Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- From: shiju
- Better polling solution in wince driver
- Prev by Date: Re: WINCE500 folder copy fails to reproduce
- Next by Date: Re: SOS!!Boot Loader StartUp Function !!
- Previous by thread: Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- Next by thread: Re: Better polling solution in wince driver
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|