| ??? 01/17/07 19:00 Read: times |
#130985 - Could be a place for ... take a deep breath ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
an 8255!
It all depends on what he's doing ... Old and slow may be perfectly adequate. We have no way of knowing. If all he's doing is driving LED's from parallel ports, he'll have to buffer the signals anyway, as the MCU can't drive that many either, and he may not be prepared to use a high-pin-count device. Until he fills in the details, we really can only guess. RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| MCS-51 I/O PORT EXPANDER | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| read the FAQ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 2. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| beware | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hard? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Could be a place for ... take a deep breath ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Richard, please,... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you noticed the loss of the O/P? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Give him a chance... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It\\\'s come up before ... perhaps it\\\'s homework | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Don't you mean... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| well, yes, but if one works ... more will, too | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| go for SILabs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| maybe a bit more information is needed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Use I/O expander | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| This suggestion, while good, is entirely premature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if very high speed is no concern go for IIC | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do you notice that we've lost the O/P? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
That would explain the nomenclature | 01/01/70 00:00 |