From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C67EF05.8B20B8A5@ardistech.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:19:17 +0100 From: "bart@ardistech.com" Reply-To: bart@ardistech.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Malek Cc: Alex Zeffertt , Embedded Linux PPC List , dmalek@jlc.net Subject: Re: MPC823: i2c-algo-8xx read interrupt? References: <3C63EC39.ACEECA08@ardistech.com> <3C640532.5000708@embeddededge.com> <3C640C11.4080407@cambridgebroadband.com> <3C6776CC.634AB65D@ardistech.com> <3C67E38C.2020304@embeddededge.com> <3C67E711.2108C6DD@ardistech.com> <3C67EB09.5010700@embeddededge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Dan Malek wrote: > > > So, you think interrupt and management overhead of the software to send a > couple of bytes on a 100k serial interface is free? The chip designers are > often upset when you don't use every feature, but you need to apply some > real systems engineering methods and analyze how all of these little things > help (or hurt) your application. > Most important reason for me to do the i2c with the RISC is the scalebility: if the application needs to do a lot more i2c io as expected it won't affect the overal performance. Bart ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/