| ??? 01/28/11 14:26 Read: times |
#180880 - Parity Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I kind of suspect that the 9-bit mode may have started as manual use/abuse of partity. As long as the microcontroller can afford to take one interrupt for every received character, you don't need any automatic address management. But when embedded started to go battery-operated, the sleep abilities of automatic address detection could greatly extend the battery life.
But the above is pure speculation. I really don't know when and where I first saw 9-bit multiprocessor communication using the ninth bit as address selector. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Origins of 9-bit, "Multiprocessor" UART mode? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do not know, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| begged question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pre-'51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I do not remember... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not remembering == Don't recall reading | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you forgotten 68xx? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No list of model numbers, so nothing to have forgotten | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How I spent my time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Motorola not forgotten | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you forgotten your rule... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sub-question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Parity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Works both ways | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LOL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Still don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
oscillation in system | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cross-Post | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hee Hee... | 01/01/70 00:00 |