| ??? 03/17/05 22:15 Read: times |
#89886 - USB > I2C Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I guess we all know that USB != I2C, but the two protocols do have a meeting point in history. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but Access.Bus was built on top of I2C and was meant to be much of what USB has become (less the hubs). So USB was crafted at a time that Access.Bus was just starting (hey, Molex even had a standard Access.bus connector) and USB completely took over. Do a web search for more info.
Anyway, thanks for all the ideas and comments. I'm not sure at this stage where this project will end up... GB |
| 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 |