| ??? 09/29/06 16:43 Read: times |
#125382 - I use bit-bang instead of hardware i2c Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I would have rather not done it that way, but it was easier to re-use a bit-bang module that talks to a lone EEPROM on pins that I had available, than it was to move parts around on a PCB so that I could use the internal h/w i2c.
The other thing that I think is goofy with a lot of i2c hardware is that you need to be interrupted way too often. If I have to service the i2c interrupt every 10 or 50us, then what's the point? Kind of like people who start an ADC conversion in interrupt mode, then poll for the interrupt flag (10us later). Bit-bang i2c is infinitely interruptable in most cases (not SMBus though) so high prioity IRQs can occur without additional latency. GB |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| 8051 microcontroller with ISO7816 & I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Its simple.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| implementing I2C in software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| AT89C2051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Emulating ISO7816 vs I2C in software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| emulate ISO7816 in software | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe not a good idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 7816 via UART | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| WHY? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I use bit-bang instead of hardware i2c | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as often as with an UART | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| for those wondering | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Atmel and 7816 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interrested | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| software I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why oh why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| welcome | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I did: Get a chip with HW IIC. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 01/01/70 00:00 | ||
WHY ON EARTH DO SO? | 01/01/70 00:00 |