Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:55:52 -0800
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19981017105421.007a8890@mail.cybrzn.com>
References: <v04020a00b24de6c271c6@[192.168.1.66]> <004401bdf98c$bfb6ae40$be6efea9@eddie>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


>Go to www.clinet.fi/~ozone/i2c for information on the Mbus and I2C systems.
> Grant is right in that you only can legally use the I2C protocol if you
>have a I2C device made by Phillips in the network.  However, its not likely
>that Phillips is going to come to your house and investigate your
>calculaotr for fear that it may use the I2C protocol.

I didn't say there was no MBus.  I said:

>>>The MBus isn't a protocall.
>>>
>>>There is no MBus Hub.


>Back to your initial question, yes, two calculators using a ti-cable can
>use the i2c protocol. When grant said there was no MBus, he meant that
>there was no MBus protocol.  While this is not entirely true (Osma did
>modify the I2C protocol slightly to better accomadate a calculator
>network), the MBus system is more like a bunch of routines which enable you
>to use the I2C protocol from your calculator over the link port.

The only modification he did was slow the speed of transfers a little.
That isn't modifying the code since all I2C chips can do that.  Its not I2C
if he modified it.  You'd be surprized how strict the I2C rules are.  : \

Follow-Ups:

Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C

From: kaus <kaus@cybrzn.com>

References:

Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>

Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C

From: "Miles Raymond" <m_rayman@bigfoot.com>

Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C

From: kaus <kaus@cybrzn.com>