??? 03/16/05 21:04 Read: times |
#89806 - This is why Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I said use the asyncronous fifo eric,the cost of implementing it is going to be minimal compared to the time spent debugging the system using any other schemebut as they say you can lead a horse to water but you shouldnt put all your eggs in one basket,a stitch in time gathers no moss. |
Topic | Author | Date |
Contemplating multiprocessor | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
fifo | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
and also | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
multiprocessor communication | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
ACKs | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You want it all and you want it for free | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why not HW I2C or SPI | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Why not HW I2C or SPI | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB ??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB !!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
You Correct Sir | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB != I2C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
USB > I2C![]() | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
do not multimaster | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
hmm | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
concurrence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
This is why | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
depends on data rate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Normally | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Are You Sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I would be | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I would be | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
it works for me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Are You Sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
IIC speed - no limit | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
nixed by other team members | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Multi-Proc Xface | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
exactly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Shift register (Mode 0)? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Time savers | 01/01/70 00:00 |