| ??? 10/10/10 20:31 Read: times |
#179037 - Totally Agree Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I totally agree that the idea of using the internal I2C peripheral hardware on board the MCU, such as SiLabs types with such support, can be a pain in the butt. ((Once it gets working it is excellent)). I find that it can actually be easier to get a master mode bit banged implementation up and going.
The worst thing to deal with is trying to get the I2C type peripheral hardware working in the interrupt mode while at the same time trying to share that interrupt routine between the protocol for 3 or 4 devices that have different command framing protocol on the bus. One of course wants to try to use the interrupt structure for talking on the bus due to the performance gain that results of not polling around to a device for for one millisecond after another. Michael Karas |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 5V configurable bus expansions? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have a look | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Like this ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| CPLD/FPGA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maxim chip looking real nice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 7301 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| But SPI as carrier is at least very easy to use | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| unfair comparison | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not really true | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't entirely agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| picky | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not even that! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Subject is changed. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
External pull-up or '245 are much too limiting | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Totally Agree | 01/01/70 00:00 |