| ??? 03/16/05 22:04 Read: times |
#89814 - depends on data rate Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jez Smith said:
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 scheme Grant didn't really indicate his target data rate, other than to say that "bit-banged I2C" isn't fast enough. If he can stand the overhead, perhaps my mailbox register concept is adequate. A FIFO would certainly work, perhaps with minimal glue logic, but even small FIFO chips are expensive. Methinks Grant must rethink his budget if all he can afford are some 74xxx parts but he wants very fast data transfer. Maybe hardware (not bit-banged) high-speed (3.4 Mbps) I2C between the two micros is fast enough? -a |
| 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 |