| ??? 04/15/05 13:24 Modified: 04/15/05 13:25 Read: times |
#91640 - misunderstanding? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Mehdi's ways of thinking are sometimes hard to understand, but what I think he intended to say is, that there is no need to explicitly setb SDA at the beginning of a read cycle, as each sane I2C (TWI,...) master bit-bang implementation would release the SDA at the end of the transmission of slave address (in acceptation of ACK from the slave) and of course also after each confirming ACK after byte read before next byte read.
But why he mentioned STOP condition, that was misleading. There is no reading after the STOP condition (before new START etc.etc.) Jan Waclawek |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Bit Bang i2c | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You should | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Errr | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a slight problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I was | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Licence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| call it SMB | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| maybe different | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Correction! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| SETB SDA | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| misunderstanding? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| re: | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thanks to Atmel | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 'Stub' resistors missing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pull ups ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not those... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Rp | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| IIC is owned by philips why not go there | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You're right! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Set port as input - NO SUCH THING! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| oh yes there is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, but not here? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nowhere in the documentation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| one more reason not to rely on testing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Catch 'em young ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 |