"I2C" versus "IIC"

"I2C" versus "IIC"

[Robert P. J. Day]

  i was just about to rename some of my variables and macros to be
consistent with what i *thought* was the standard nomenclature of
"IIC" as opposed to "I2C".  just checked include/asm-ppc, and grepped
for case-insensitive instances of both strings ... oh, god.  there's
really no preferred usage, is there?

rday

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Mark Chambers]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
To: "Embedded PPC Linux list" <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: "I2C" versus "IIC"

My vote, since nobody asked, would be "I2C".  I've always heard people
say "I squared C", and since only CBS can get superscripts out of ASCII
I2C is about as close as you can get.  I2C is more unique and hence
a more readily recognizable acronym.

But I'm sure we could get about 50/50 voting on this.

Mark

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mark Chambers wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
> To: "Embedded PPC Linux list" <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:26 PM
> Subject: "I2C" versus "IIC"
>
> My vote, since nobody asked, would be "I2C".  I've always heard people
> say "I squared C", and since only CBS can get superscripts out of ASCII
> I2C is about as close as you can get.  I2C is more unique and hence
> a more readily recognizable acronym.
>
> But I'm sure we could get about 50/50 voting on this.

oh, probably. :-)  i realize it sounds nitpicky and pedantic, but it
would have been nice if the source was consistent on this.  but based
on my grep of the tree, i don't see that that's possible -- too many
examples of each.  it's kind of a mess.  personally, i'd prefer a
consistent usage of "i2c" or "I2C" as well, but i just don't see it
happening.

rday

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[annamaya]

My vote is for I2C :-)
--- Mark Chambers <markc@mail.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
> To: "Embedded PPC Linux list"
> <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:26 PM
> Subject: "I2C" versus "IIC"
> 
> My vote, since nobody asked, would be "I2C".  I've
> always heard people
> say "I squared C", and since only CBS can get
> superscripts out of ASCII
> I2C is about as close as you can get.  I2C is more
> unique and hence
> a more readily recognizable acronym.
> 
> But I'm sure we could get about 50/50 voting on
> this.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
> Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
>
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Eugene Surovegin]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:26:23PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   i was just about to rename some of my variables and macros to be
> consistent with what i *thought* was the standard nomenclature of
> "IIC" as opposed to "I2C".  just checked include/asm-ppc, and grepped
> for case-insensitive instances of both strings ... oh, god.  there's
> really no preferred usage, is there?

Philips' documentation uses I2C, not IIC, so I guess this is 
_official_ name of the _bus_.

Some vendors (like IBM in their 4xx parts) use IIC to name I2C 
_interface_ to distinguish it from I2C _bus_ (they specifically 
mention this in the chip manual).

For example, in the corresponding 4xx driver I used "iic" because it 
was written for IBM IIC _interface_.

--
Eugene.

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Eugene Surovegin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:26:23PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >   i was just about to rename some of my variables and macros to be
> > consistent with what i *thought* was the standard nomenclature of
> > "IIC" as opposed to "I2C".  just checked include/asm-ppc, and grepped
> > for case-insensitive instances of both strings ... oh, god.  there's
> > really no preferred usage, is there?
>
> Philips' documentation uses I2C, not IIC, so I guess this is
> _official_ name of the _bus_.
>
> Some vendors (like IBM in their 4xx parts) use IIC to name I2C
> _interface_ to distinguish it from I2C _bus_ (they specifically
> mention this in the chip manual).
>
> For example, in the corresponding 4xx driver I used "iic" because it
> was written for IBM IIC _interface_.

i'm starting to regret having brought this up. :-)  initially, i
thought it was going to involve only my deciding what i wanted to name
my own variables, to be consistent with common usage.  now i see that
it's nowhere near that straightforward.

i'm going to leave this to wiser heads to mull over.

rday

RE: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[VanBaren, Gerald (AGRE)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org=0D
> [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of=0D
> Eugene Surovegin
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:34 PM
> To: Robert P. J. Day
> Cc: Embedded PPC Linux list
> Subject: Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"
>=0D
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:26:23PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >=0D
> >   i was just about to rename some of my variables and macros to be=0D
> > consistent with what i *thought* was the standard nomenclature of=0D
> > "IIC" as opposed to "I2C".  just checked include/asm-ppc,=0D
> and grepped=0D
> > for case-insensitive instances of both strings ... oh, god.=0D
>  there's=0D
> > really no preferred usage, is there?
>=0D
> Philips' documentation uses I2C, not IIC, so I guess this is=0D
> _official_ name of the _bus_.
>=0D
> Some vendors (like IBM in their 4xx parts) use IIC to name=0D
> I2C _interface_ to distinguish it from I2C _bus_ (they=0D
> specifically mention this in the chip manual).
>=0D
> For example, in the corresponding 4xx driver I used "iic"=0D
> because it was written for IBM IIC _interface_.
>=0D
> --
> Eugene.


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.

gvb



******************************************
The following messages are brought to you by the Lawyers' League of
IdioSpeak:

******************************************
The information contained in, or attached to, this e-mail, may contain=
 confidential information and is intended solely for the use of the=
 individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may be subject to=
 legal privilege.  If you have received this e-mail in error you should=
 notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail, delete the message from=
 your system and notify your system manager.  Please do not copy it for any=
 purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.  The views or=
 opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do=
 not necessarily represent those of the company.  The recipient should=
 check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses.  The=
 company accepts no liability for any damage caused, directly or=
 indirectly, by any virus transmitted in this email.
******************************************

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Matt Porter]

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.

-Matt

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Mark Chambers]

> 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.
> 
> -Matt

Assuming this to be true, it still may be a bit misguided.  Using 'i2c' to
refer to a legal implementation is no more illegal than a restaurant
putting 'Coke' on their menu.  What does Philips want?  They want
royalties from implementations of i2c, and they do not want the term
diluted by using it to refer to other similar protocols.  So I don't
think that just changing to 'iic' would pacify them in either of these
cases.  If it's truly i2c I don't think they care what you call your
variables, (just so the chip manufacturer pays up) and if it's not, 
find a completely different name.

Mark C.

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Matt Porter]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:48:34PM -0400, Mark Chambers 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.
>
> Assuming this to be true, it still may be a bit misguided.  Using 'i2c' to
> refer to a legal implementation is no more illegal than a restaurant
> putting 'Coke' on their menu.  What does Philips want?  They want
> royalties from implementations of i2c, and they do not want the term
> diluted by using it to refer to other similar protocols.  So I don't
> think that just changing to 'iic' would pacify them in either of these
> cases.  If it's truly i2c I don't think they care what you call your
> variables, (just so the chip manufacturer pays up) and if it's not, 
> find a completely different name.

I was talking about the trademark infringement. You are talking about
something completely different, patent-encumbered licensable
technology.  The naming is subject only to trademark considerations.

Whether a bus implementation is subject to Philips licensing
requirements (if any) is another area I'm not interested in. :)

-Matt

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Matt Porter]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 01:54:44PM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:48:34PM -0400, Mark Chambers 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.
> >
> > Assuming this to be true, it still may be a bit misguided.  Using 'i2c' to
> > refer to a legal implementation is no more illegal than a restaurant
> > putting 'Coke' on their menu.  What does Philips want?  They want
> > royalties from implementations of i2c, and they do not want the term
> > diluted by using it to refer to other similar protocols.  So I don't
> > think that just changing to 'iic' would pacify them in either of these
> > cases.  If it's truly i2c I don't think they care what you call your
> > variables, (just so the chip manufacturer pays up) and if it's not, 
> > find a completely different name.
> 
> I was talking about the trademark infringement. You are talking about
> something completely different, patent-encumbered licensable
> technology.  The naming is subject only to trademark considerations.
> 
> Whether a bus implementation is subject to Philips licensing
> requirements (if any) is another area I'm not interested in. :)

Never mind. I lied about not being interestered (damn curiousity).
Here's the scoop on licensing from the Opencores I2C implementation
page.

http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/i2c/faq

-Matt

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Mark Chambers]

> I was talking about the trademark infringement. You are talking about
> something completely different, 

Well, actually I was talking about both issues, but here's what I think 
about Philips patenting i2c:  It's great work if you can get it.  

And I think I'm going to wrap it up for the day, and if i2c is still here
when I get up in the morning I'm going to throw it out on its ear.

Mark

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Eugene Surovegin]

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

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Matt Porter]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 02:14:28PM -0700, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> 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.

I see "two-wire serial interface" on a lot of devices. That one
is awfully popular. :)

> You need some familiarity with bus protocol to figure out that this is 
> really I2C :).

Yup.

-Matt

Re: "I2C" versus "IIC"

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Eugene Surovegin wrote:

> 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 :).

oh, gawd, i'm sorry i started this. :-P

rday