Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
09/13/02 20:07
Read: times


 		 #29149 - 8255 - great building block.
Though I can understand the arguments against the old 8255, it has to be said that for a drop in solution to parallel I/O there isn't anything to match it OFF THE SHELF. Yes, I KNOW that we can design a CPLD that can do the same job, but why bother ? I2C isn't anything like fast enough for a lot of I/O tasks, neither is SPI, there are NO off the shelf SPI I/O devices as flexible as the 8255.

I'd like to see VHDL code for an identical function to the 8255. Anyone actually done it ?

List of 22 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address..Thanks Eric            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address..Thanks Eric            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address..Thanks Eric            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address..Thanks Eric            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
8255 - great building block.            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: 8255 - great building block.            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: 8255 - great building block.            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: Defining base address            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: clarification (Philips reply above)            01/01/70 00:00      
RE: clarification (Philips reply above)            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List