| ??? 02/20/08 15:48 Read: times |
#151210 - very valid point Responding to: ???'s previous message |
suggest the 8 and 16 bit I2C solutions because it seems to strike a good balance toward placing the I/Os near their targeted usage area
I actually recall doing just that in lieu of a "plethora of I/O chip" for the reason Michael states. If I recall correctly you can have 8 8 bitters or 4 16 bitters (or a mix) on the same IIC bus. Of course, IIC ports are only a solution "if your process have the time" Now, if this is not the major concern I'd still go for an 8-porter. Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| lots of i/o | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| There are 16-bit Expanders | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The + and - of the slave processor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the logical solution is to ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Roll 'yer own, and get exactly what you want | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why bother | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you're right, if "conventional" I/O ports are OK | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Max 7301 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lots of i/o part 2 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Theres a 40way NXP I/O expander | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simple Distributed Concept | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| very valid point | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| For sure.....the multi-port job.... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lots of i/o part 3 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I love slave processors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
MCP23008 | 01/01/70 00:00 |