Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Sign in
Toggle navigation
C
Conv TTL Blocking
Project
Project
Details
Activity
Cycle Analytics
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Charts
Issues
5
Issues
5
List
Board
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
Wiki
Wiki
image/svg+xml
Discourse
Discourse
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Charts
Create a new issue
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Projects
Conv TTL Blocking
Commits
e8f4061e
Commit
e8f4061e
authored
Nov 04, 2013
by
Javier Serrano
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Some comments after reading the I2C slave core guide
parent
c5561f06
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
18 additions
and
0 deletions
+18
-0
javier.txt
design-review/javier.txt
+18
-0
No files found.
design-review/javier.txt
View file @
e8f4061e
...
@@ -16,6 +16,24 @@ cycles? A maximum g_pwidth should also be imposed to preserve the
...
@@ -16,6 +16,24 @@ cycles? A maximum g_pwidth should also be imposed to preserve the
transformer. "The behavior of the outputs are different" -> "The
transformer. "The behavior of the outputs are different" -> "The
behavior of the outputs is different"
behavior of the outputs is different"
Some comments while reading the "I2C Slave Core" document
=========================================================
I find it quite misleading that sometimes a "read" is from the slave's
point of view, sometime from the master's. There should be only one
convention, which as far as I'm concerned should be the master's point
of view. A write is always a write from the master. Same for
reads. This convention (which is basically the one used in all
literature about VME, PCI, etc) should be stated just once at the
beginning of the document.
Page 5: we're asking the user of this core to set ack_n_i before SCL
goes high. I think this is not a reasonable requirement because the
user of this core has no control over SCL. In fact, shielding the user
from any need to look at SCL should be one of the goals of this
core. You can make a more reasonable request to the user by asking
that ack_n_i be set one clk_i tick after done_p_o goes high, for
example.
Todo
Todo
====
====
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment