| ??? 02/12/07 22:54 Modified: 02/12/07 22:55 Read: times |
#132686 - Yes, it requires tools to make it fit ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
and that doesn't make it a good idea.
I was just speculating on the notion that the 'HC11 also uses that multiplexed address/data bus arrangement. I don't know why Intel had to put out two ALE cycles per code-space access ... Intel did, and continues to do, a lot of what turned out to be REALLY stupid things, mostly with positive interrupts and positive resets. They get by with it because they're big and nobody is smart/bold enough to take a different path. RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| port expander ... NOT 82C55! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have not, but how about a link | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Link... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not so fast with the TK68HC24 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Nothing critically timed ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Generation of "e" clock | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| inserting a square peg in a round hole | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, it requires tools to make it fit ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The reason for 2 ALE cycles | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too bad they weren't smarter ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pipelining in the 8051 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It\'s possible in some cases ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| technology marches on | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Those Dallas 4-clockers date back to ~1992 or so | 01/01/70 00:00 |