??? 03/16/05 22:20 Read: times |
#89815 - Normally Responding to: ???'s previous message |
fifos are expensive and difficult to use because of their very high speed and so on,I agree that a reasesment of the budget would be in order bearing in mind the fact that an asyncronous fifo in a pld is cheaper and easier to implement than a dedicated high speed fifo memory,saying that I want to do all this without it costing anything isnt very realistic.I dont know how fast he wants to transfer the data as you say but a dedicated fifo is likely to be extremely fast. |
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 |