Timeline for How to connect multiple i2c-interface devices into a single pin A4 (SDA) and A5 (SCL) on Arduino?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11 at 19:38 | comment | added | SamGibson♦ | @ThePhoton - No. The situation is more complicated than it may appear, since we (SE) don't control the behaviour of manufacturers in their datasheets. There are new datasheets coming out with both old & new terminology; there are millions of old datasheets with the old terminology & there are thousands of questions on SE using the old terminology. || Before my work got overtaken by other events (including AI now), my draft proposal had grown to over 1 full A4 sheet, to try to cope with different cases of "what do we do in x, y, or z situation" in realistic ways. Not forgotten, but not easy. | |
| Mar 11 at 17:31 | comment | added | The Photon | @SamGibson, was the discussion about master/slave vs controller/target ever concluded? | |
| Mar 11 at 17:30 | history | edited | The Photon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2022 at 6:33 | history | edited | SamGibson♦ |
Rollback to Revision 5 - a site-wide policy is being developed on how to deal with the changes in I2C terminology, and should be ready for discussion soon. No such edits should be made until then.
|
|
| Jan 13, 2022 at 6:33 | comment | added | SamGibson♦ | @CATboardBETA - Hi, FYI I'm reversing your last edit here, as (a) the I2C terms you used are not the official new ones, and (b) In any case, we are working on a plan for the whole site about how to handle the changes to I2C terminology. That plan will apply to everyone - so we can't have individual members going around editing that I2C terminology, until that discussion has happened on Meta. Therefore please do not make any more edits for I2C terminology until after that discussion. (That post was planned to happen sooner on Meta, but it's been interrupted by other moderation work.) | |
| S Jan 13, 2022 at 5:49 | history | suggested | CATboardBETA | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting, replace outdated master/slave term
|
| Jan 13, 2022 at 4:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 13, 2022 at 5:49 | |||||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 23, 2017 at 15:43 | comment | added | The Photon | @SDsolar, What does this have to do with OP's question or my answer? This is not a general discussion site. If you want to just talk about stuff, you can join our chat room. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 5:49 | comment | added | SDsolar | My thoughts exactly. Adding external pullups would be in parallel with whatever is in the DS3231, and so might end up not being enough for I2C to be happy. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:45 | comment | added | The Photon | @SDsolar, that probably means the DS3231 has internal pull-ups, so by using that device, you are providing pull-ups for the bus. That's not necessarily a good thing, because it limits your freedom to adjust the pull up resistance depending on the number of devices on the bus. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:15 | comment | added | SDsolar | I've found that as long as one of the devices is the DS3231 RTC then no external pullups are required. | |
| Jun 8, 2015 at 16:07 | history | edited | The Photon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Jan 19, 2012 at 5:59 | history | edited | The Photon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| S Jan 19, 2012 at 4:36 | history | suggested | milch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
just the resistors, because they are freaking important
|
| Jan 19, 2012 at 4:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 19, 2012 at 4:36 | |||||
| Jan 19, 2012 at 3:25 | history | answered | The Photon | CC BY-SA 3.0 |