Timers (was Trivial pc-speaker problem.)

Simon 'corecode' Schubert corecode at fs.ei.tum.de
Sun Sep 26 14:07:09 PDT 2004

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.


/"\   http://corecode.ath.cx/#donate
\ /
 \     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \  Against HTML Mail and News

More information about the Kernel mailing list