Easy way to do multiple write statements ?

[Scampy]

Although not specified directly, i'd first would make the math and then place the result in the write command:

temp1=addres+counterD

write temp1... etc

I2Cwrite and I2Cread commands work only this way.

Ioannis

So the normal WRITE command won't work in this way ?

[Jerson]

Assuming that each of the hours and minutes are bytes and PWM value is a word, the write command will fill up 6 bytes on each pass. So, the code would become

   address =$50
   for counterd = 0 to 15
       write (address + (counterD*6)),lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD),lighto ffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD),fadeset(counte rD)
   next counterD

OR you could also do this

  address =$50
  for counterd = 0 to 15
     write (address),lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD),lighto ffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD),fadeset(counte rD)
     address = address+6  ' account for the data already filled into the storage
  next counterD

[Amoque]

You spoke in your original post of an "easier way", while this is not exactly what you asked, I find it easier and so offer...

Keeping track of hours and minutes separately is unnecessary. For me, over and again, I have determined that a word value representing the minutes since midnight (a value of 0 to 1440) is clearer and easier to manipulate. Switching to hours and minutes is as easy as /60 for hours and MOD 60 for minutes. All calculations loose the clumsiness of handling hours and minutes separately and determining if dates change when subtracting or adding periods is less complicated.

It doesn't save any actual eeprom space, but it could reduce the typing by changing "lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD)," to SetTime(counterD) and "lightoffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD)," to OnOffTime(counterD)

... just a thought.

[Scampy]

You spoke in your original post of an "easier way", while this is not exactly what you asked, I find it easier and so offer...

Keeping track of hours and minutes separately is unnecessary. For me, over and again, I have determined that a word value representing the minutes since midnight (a value of 0 to 1440) is clearer and easier to manipulate.
... just a thought.

I agree and that's the way I do the matching of the if then statements. The code reads the RTC, and the end result is placed in two variables, TimeH and TimeM. Then the TimeH is multiplied by 60 and added to TimeM and placed in a variable Counter1. I then have a similar statement CH1_on_Time = (lightsetHR1*60)+lightsetMN1 to convert the values in the above statement which are then placed in a variable, and then it's a simple matter to do the actions required depending on if the two variables match or one is < or > than other.

Oh and just to update this thread, and for reference for anyone in the future who may stumble on this thread...

 address =$50
  for counterd = 0 to 15
     read (address),lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD),lightoffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD),fadeset.lowbyte(counterD),fadeset.highbyte(counterD)
     address = address+6  ' account for the data already filled into the storage
  next counterD

With the the matching WRITE command, works a treat - thanks Jerson ;-)

[Scampy]

Assuming that each of the hours and minutes are bytes and PWM value is a word, the write command will fill up 6 bytes on each pass. So, the code would become

   address =$50
   for counterd = 0 to 15
       write (address + (counterD*6)),lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD),lighto ffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD),fadeset(counte rD)
   next counterD

OR you could also do this

  address =$50
  for counterd = 0 to 15
     write (address),lightsetHR(counterD),lightsetMN(counterD),lighto ffHR(counterD),lightoffMN(counterD),fadeset(counte rD)
     address = address+6  ' account for the data already filled into the storage
  next counterD

Guys, I need a little help in a similar vein.

I'm working on a slightly different program using similar variables only this time I save 48 word variables, which results in 96 lines of code for both WRITE and READ statements. The word variables are
CH1_Max, CH1_on_Time, CH1_off_Time, so I have

read 40,CH1_on_Time.lowbyte          
read 41,CH1_on_Time.highbyte
read 42,CH2_on_Time.lowbyte          
read 43,Ch2_on_Time.highbyte

Rather than have 96 lines of code is there a simple way to do this with a FOR / NEXT loop similar to above

I did try

for n = 8 to 38 step 2
READ n, ch(n)_max.lowbyte
next n


for n = 9 to 39 step 2
READ n, ch(n)_max.highbyte
next n

But this just threw up errors when I tried compiling (I'm using PBP 2.60c)

Any suggestions ?

[richard]

the "EXT" modifier make this a breeze , see if you can follow this example

  
    amps         Var Word   ext    ;chg mA
    volts        Var Word   ext    ;chg V
    kp           var word   ext
    kd           var word   ext
    ki           var word   ext
    f_0        var byte   ext
    f_1        var byte   ext
    f_2        var byte   ext
    f_3        var byte   ext
    setpoint     var word   ext   ;out volts
    cl           var word   ext   ;current limit
    flgs         VAR byte   ext
    drive        var word   ext   ;current pwm value
    a_cal        var word   ext
    v_cal        var word   ext
    bat_r        Var byte   ext    ;bits 0:3 is batt being charged , 4:7  batt connected flg
    data_blk        var byte[26]
 
asm
volts    = _data_blk   ;01
amps     = _data_blk+2 ;23
flgs     = _data_blk+4 ;4
drive    = _data_blk+5 ; 56
F_0      = _data_blk+7
F_1      = _data_blk+8
F_2      = _data_blk+9
F_3      = _data_blk+10
setpoint = _data_blk+11 ;1112
bat_r    = _data_blk+13   
ki       = _data_blk+14 ;1415
cl       = _data_blk+16   
kp       = _data_blk+18   
kd       = _data_blk+20   
a_cal    = _data_blk+22  
v_cal    = _data_blk+24 ;2425

endasm

to save

for n =0 to 25
write n, [data_blk[n]]
next n

to read

for n =0 to 25
read n, [data_blk[n]]
next n

to just save vars f_0 to f_3

for n =7 to 10 
write n, [data_blk[n]]
next n

or even better

for n =0 to 3 
write n, [f_0[n]]
next n

[Ioannis]

Richard,

what is the difference in using EXT ant this one?

data_blk  var byte [25]
f_0       var data_blk[7]

Ioannis

[richard]

ioannis


data_blk var byte [25] this reserves 25 bytes for our data

f_0 var data_blk[7] would definitely point to the correct byte but if you add or delete or rearrange or modify any vars in the array you have to go back and make sure the index is corrected , its easy to make a mistake and forget

whereas :-

using
f_0 var byte ext the assembler does all the work and we still get an index-able byte sized pointer to use