From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailhost.rdmcorp.com (world.rdmcorp.com [204.225.180.10]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7EB2BC0F for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:26:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:19:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" To: Eugene Surovegin In-Reply-To: <20041013211428.GB28349@gate.ebshome.net> Message-ID: References: <065ACD8E84315E4394C835E398C8D5EB865270@COSSMGMBX02.email.corp.tld> <20041013132613.A21277@home.com> <20041013211428.GB28349@gate.ebshome.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "VanBaren, Gerald \(AGRE\)" , Embedded PPC Linux list 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, 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