So here's a question, particularly for POCs. Is "master" a problematic word when not juxtaposed with "slave"? My guess is not, because the word has a much broader meaning in English, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Show this thread
-
An SPI slave operates at the command of the master device. It's a pretty appropriate usage of the word - which is why people (of all races) have used the term for decades
No it doesn't. SPI is just a communications protocol. The *only* meaning of master/slave in its context is that the master drives the clock and selects who to talk to. It does not say anything about who is following orders.
-
-
For example, it's entirely reasonable for a *master" SPI device to be polling commands to run from a "slave" SPI device. Sorry, the terminology is bad here, as it is in most overloaded usages of "master"/"slave".
-
For SPI, something like *host/device" would be easier to understand than "master/slave" (where the host implies more responsibility; in this case, driving the clock and chip selects). For I²C, since multiple devs can drive the bus, "initiator/target" or "/responder" works well.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.