| ??? 04/19/11 09:47 Read: times |
#181950 - You didn't answer the question! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jusman Sulaiman said:
I read one of Jan Axelson's book about 8051, and she encourage the reader to always buffer the 89CXX ports But why is this specifically necessary only with the Atmel 89CXX, and not with other 8051 derivatives? What is it specifically about the Atmel 89CXX that requires buffering, while other 8051 derivatives do not? As Per says, you should not just take these things as "magic spells" - you need to understand the reason(s) behind them. Especially if you are going to state them as "rules" to others... |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| AT89c55 Connection with ULN2803/4 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There is a FAQ for that | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| MAX1232 + some NORs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| #181903 - AT89c55 Connection with ULN2803/4 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| '595 Chip /OE | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pull-downs... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 89C55 connection with 2803 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why is Atmel different? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why 89CXX is different | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Advice not understood | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You didn't answer the question! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
not necessarily because of AT89 | 01/01/70 00:00 |