Re: TI-H: TI Network - TIN

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: TI Network - TIN
From: kaus <kaus@cybrzn.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 22:34:18 -0500
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <362C02AB.800@geocities.com>
References: <v04020a02b251ae8e3a52@[192.168.1.66]>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


no. its 128.  the address byte bit 7 is read/write
thats what makes it suck

i know that the 10bit is doable, but it seems liek such a hack :)

At 11:25 PM 10/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>First, it's 8-bit, therefore, 256 addresses.  Next, MBus is NOT I2C,
>it's XI2C, making it 10-bit, therefore allowing 1024 devices on the bus,
>or at least, Osma (Ozone) said he was working on it.  It's basically the
>same, just enhanced.  I2C devices work fine with XI2C for the most part.
>For an expander to be a file server, you either need a bit more firmware
>code, a dedicated calc controller, or you just deal with a lot less
>speed from the expander, since it has to handle all the requensts and
>delay them, so that you end up "on line" for a long time.
>
>CK
>
>
>Grant Stockly wrote:
>
>> #1.  I2C is compatible with all calcs.
>> #2.  The E(g) is a file server
>> #3.  I2C has 128 addresses.  You show me anywhere near 128 calcs or even
>> tell me where there would be the need to tie 128 calcs together (remember
>> they all share 3k of bandwidth) and I'll see a need for more addresses...
>> 
>> Grant
>

References:

Re: TI-H: TI Network - TIN

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>

Re: TI-H: TI Network - TIN

From: Christopher Kalos <raptorone@geocities.com>