| ??? 03/17/05 00:03 Read: times |
#89827 - Are You Sure Responding to: ???'s previous message |
The reason I am on this ugly path in the first place is because the ONE chip that I wanted to use got nixed by other team members (would require new tools, etc) "but we have these two CHEAP chips here that we use all the time", sooo... :-(
It's not a done deal yet. I may yet go with the I2C approach or similar, but had hoped to be faster. The device itself is a bridge between two other communications mediums and I didn't want to introduce a bottleneck. Certainly the single-chip solution would be best, but I lost that battle (so far). GB |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Contemplating multiprocessor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| fifo | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| and also | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| multiprocessor communication | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ACKs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You want it all and you want it for free | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why not HW I2C or SPI | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Why not HW I2C or SPI | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| USB ??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| USB !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| USB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You Correct Sir | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| USB != I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB > I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do not multimaster | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hmm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| concurrence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This is why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| depends on data rate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Normally | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Are You Sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I would be | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I would be | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| it works for me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Are You Sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| IIC speed - no limit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nixed by other team members | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Multi-Proc Xface | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| exactly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Shift register (Mode 0)? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Time savers | 01/01/70 00:00 |