| ??? 01/17/07 19:13 Read: times |
#130989 - This suggestion, while good, is entirely premature Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Without information about what sort of port expander is required, and how it should behave, how it must interact with firmware, including timing, etc, no amount of guessing will help.
The orignial poster (O/P), Asghar Khan, will have to tell us what his goals and requirements are. He needs to tell us what his MCU speed is, what his load characteristics are, what is synchronization issues are, and much more. Until that information is on the table, no useful discussion can occur. 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 |