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
-
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.
-
You basically just illustrated my point. I'm not very knowledgeable about either SPI or I2C, but using host/device or initiator/target tells me lots of information about the topology that I didn't previously know. Master/slave is lazy and gatekeeps PoC from our community.
- 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.