https://devzone.nordicsemi.com/f/nordic-q-a/71479/sdk16-0-ppi-example-cpu-waste-with-an-empty-timer-handlerhello Nordic something is not clear to me regarding the use of timer and ppi to toggle a pin 1. to my understanding the whole idea of using the ppi is to avoid CPU intervention, but if i must have a handler as the &#39;nrf_drv_timer_init()&#39; demandsen-USTelligent Community 13Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:48:15 GMThttps://devzone.nordicsemi.com/thread/293713?ContentTypeID=1Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:48:15 GMT137ad170-7792-4731-bb38-c0d22fbe4515:b1d90e26-e4d2-4460-9448-51f68e377c9eEinar Thorsrud<p>Hi Ziv,</p> <p>It is possible to use the timer driver without interrupts, but the way the driver is designed to need to provide a event handler function even if it is not used, when you call&nbsp;nrf_drv_timer_init(). However during subsequent configuration you can decide if you want to use interrupts for specific events or not. So for instance if you configure an event on a compare using&nbsp;nrf_drv_timer_extended_compare() the last parameter is a boolean that configures if you want a interrupt or not. If that is set to false the event can be used to trigger PPI, but there will never be an interrupt.</p> <p>The result of this is that you always need to provide a dummy timer event handler (which I agree is not elegant) but it is never called unless you want it to, so it does not cause any additional CPU usage.</p> <p>Einar</p><div style="clear:both;"></div>