| ??? 10/02/08 07:39 Read: times |
#158753 - wow Responding to: ???'s previous message |
GOOD explanation..thank you....the changing technique i think is the best but i got confused on this statement."But for max speed, the slave can not allow any interrupts when communicating since the time needed for the interrupt affects the shortest allowed time the SPI clock may be in low or high state and the slave still have time to detect the clock change and either read the received data before the master removes it, or put out one bit of data for the master and have the outgoing signal line (MISO) stabilize before the master samples it on the next phase change of the clock. " can you give futher explanation and or example?
and also..bwt this post Subject: if you do not use an interrupt Full Name: Erik Malund (Research Triangle Park, Nc Usa) Date: 30/Sep/08 7:39 am Read: 22 times-- Printable Version Score: Hasn't been scored and about interrupt, my question would be, is it better to use one? on my slave? if you do not use an interrupt, your slave can do NOTHING except the transfer. maybe i would ask, is it simple to code such slave? for VERY slow transfer, maybe, else NO! Erik you explanation may answer this one.. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| SPI slave | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| high speed? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sory for late replay. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SPI clock | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not sure.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the worst possible approach | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SPI Slave Response | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| further explanation? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fixed speed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SPI Timing Diagrams | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| UART Mode 0 - SPI like Serial Shif register | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| uhm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| to joe | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| your point? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you can't fail with software master | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unanswerable! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| really? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Intended for/usable for not always identical | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| consideration? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some Questions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| whichever you choose | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| low cost? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you do not use an interrupt | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| polling? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bits/s not packet size | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| speed? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| bits/s not packet size! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 500ms? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes - I agree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| issues | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| UART! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not complex - just requiring low baudrate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| kind of rcorrect | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Complexity contra recommendable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| as i said | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lots of them | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
mcu with spi, right here in the thread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| CodeArchitect. ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ahhh | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| simulating SS? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interrupts are slower than tight polling | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| wow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| all about worst-case | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| missed interrupts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| correct me.. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fast interrupts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| thanks... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| An Alternative... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some Descriptive Information | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| AT89LP2052 has HW SPI | 01/01/70 00:00 |