From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.ebshome.net (gate.ebshome.net [64.81.67.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "gate.ebshome.net", Issuer "gate.ebshome.net" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193572BC0F for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:14:31 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:14:28 -0700 From: Eugene Surovegin To: Matt Porter Message-ID: <20041013211428.GB28349@gate.ebshome.net> References: <065ACD8E84315E4394C835E398C8D5EB865270@COSSMGMBX02.email.corp.tld> <20041013132613.A21277@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20041013132613.A21277@home.com> Cc: Embedded PPC Linux list , "VanBaren, Gerald \(AGRE\)" Subject: Re: "I2C" versus "IIC" List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:26:13PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:18:03PM -0600, VanBaren, Gerald (AGRE) wrote: > > Just to mess with your minds... I2C is a trademark of Philips > > Electronics N.V. so that is probably not the best choice from a > > legalistic point of view. > > It's been related to me several times that this is the reason why > most implementers refer to their interface/bus as IIC in > documentation. Yeah, the most "extreme" variant being "two-wire serial interface", without even mentioning I2C or IIC. You need some familiarity with bus protocol to figure out that this is really I2C :). -- Eugene