Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: TI <--?--> I2C
yes. That means that there is no "MBus" There is I2C.
>Yes, but you said this too:
>>>>>There is no MBus. Under the restrictions made by Philips the standard
>>>>>must be called 'I2C' and have atleast one authorized I2C device on the
>>>>>network, none of which include a TI calculator.
>
>
>At 07:55 AM 10/17/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>>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. : \
>
>I've looked at them. What he did was add a "software" level of the
>protocol when going between two calculators. It sends the address byte,
>followed by the protocol-id or whatever he calls it, which determines which
>program that is using the network should pick up the message. When sending
>data to a real i2c device, it is sent in "raw mode"
References: