| ??? 03/03/06 14:17 Read: times |
#111175 - UART chip vs added micro Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Both can give you the added UART for the cost of 2 (IIC) 3(SPI) or 4 pins.
The ideal situation is (I'm happy to say I have it) a "master" '51 with hardware IIC and a "slave" '51 with HW IIC. Still, if you insist on using the AT89C55WD instead of a modern derivative, you can, of course bit-bang the IIC. Now for "UART chip vs added micro" you can program the added micro to function exactly the same way (FIFO etc) as an external UART, no gain there. BUT why not let the added micro preprocess the data, for instance, if you employ handshakes, is there a reason the added micro can not do that by itself?. I actualkly, in one case have an external micro for UART purposes whith a "master" with an unused UART simply because the master can not provide the processing time for timelt protocol handling and the sub$1 '51 does that all on it's own. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Implementing a UART through Software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| YES | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hints for softUART | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| search for "bit Bang UART" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use a small cheap second 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You can also get SPI UARTs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you used them? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| can be Philips? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
UART chip vs added micro | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Communicating with PC | 01/01/70 00:00 |