Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > sci.electronics.design > #453989

Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C

From David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com>
Newsgroups sci.electronics.design
Subject Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C
Date 2017-03-28 14:47 +0000
Organization NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex
Message-ID <obdt2j$oqo$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References <ob4lm9$k58$1@reader1.panix.com> <lf6jdc9u2l0hj0r3gqcgf81i7hm0djmn0a@4ax.com> <obcl85$9dn$1@reader1.panix.com> <obcp78$kgs$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw


rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:


>The I2C port is a hardware interface on the MCU, so it will have a 
>driver in software so that it will be easy to program.  If you are happy 
>with the I2C relay board, there is no reason to use the SPI port.  You 
>just need to set the address switches differently on each of the relay 
>boards so that there are no address conflicts including the other I2C 
>peripherals like the display.

I thought the display was on the SPI bus. The choice is also a function
of what relay boards of each ilk I find. I expected to find lots, and
have not.
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-25 02:46 +0000
  Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C krw@notreal.com - 2017-03-24 23:25 -0400
    Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-26 04:13 +0000
  Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:04 -0400
    Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-26 04:11 +0000
      Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 02:37 -0400
        Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-26 14:41 +0000
          Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 12:47 -0400
            Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-26 19:49 +0000
              Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:49 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-27 18:41 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 19:07 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-28 08:03 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-28 10:44 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-28 18:59 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Martin Riddle <martin_rid@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 15:37 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-04-03 17:49 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 15:18 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-04-04 02:59 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 00:54 -0400
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-28 05:08 +0000
                Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 02:16 -0400
  Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 19:03 -0400
    Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-28 03:28 +0000
      Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 00:38 -0400
        Re: Output boards, SPI vs I2C David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2017-03-28 14:47 +0000

csiph-web