??? 04/15/05 15:46 Read: times |
#91660 - You're right! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Steve M. Taylor said:
Geert,
The standards don't indicate that the 100 R resistors are mandatory. http://www.mcc-us.com/i2cHowToUseIt1995.pdf, certainly not for non-fast mode I2C. They suggest them for voltage spike resistance only. Steve Yes, Steve, you're right. They're only needed for 'protective' reasons. I'm so used to place them all the time, that I thought they were mandatory, but the specs clearly indicate their only purpose is to protect the device against high voltage spikes, as you stated. Best rgds, --Geert |
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 |