Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's from the '80s, so no patents are in force. According to Wikipedia, "noHi,
does anyone know whether it is still required to register with NXP to
use I2C interface?
Have not been able to locate the registration link in NXP...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:28:28 -0800 (PST), Matthew Ling
matthewlingch@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know whether it is still required to register with NXP to
use I2C interface?
Have not been able to locate the registration link in NXP...
It's from the '80s, so no patents are in force. According to Wikipedia, "no
license fees are required" to implement the protocol (strange, since the
licenses *had* to have run out). It also mentions that NXP charges for
address allocation (why would anyone pay for that?).
Isn't Sesame Street prior art on numbers from 1 to 127 and the letters N, X,On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:04:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:28:28 -0800 (PST), Matthew Ling
matthewlingch@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know whether it is still required to register with NXP to
use I2C interface?
Have not been able to locate the registration link in NXP...
It's from the '80s, so no patents are in force. According to Wikipedia, "no
license fees are required" to implement the protocol (strange, since the
licenses *had* to have run out). It also mentions that NXP charges for
address allocation (why would anyone pay for that?).
Maybe they patented all the low integers?
Presumably it's a nominal handling fee. Having a central authorityOn Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:28:28 -0800 (PST), Matthew Ling
matthewlingch@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know whether it is still required to register with NXP to
use I2C interface?
Have not been able to locate the registration link in NXP...
It's from the '80s, so no patents are in force. According to Wikipedia, "no
license fees are required" to implement the protocol (strange, since the
licenses *had* to have run out). It also mentions that NXP charges for
address allocation (why would anyone pay for that?).
Get real. With an address space of only seven bits, there *are* going to beOn Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:04:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:28:28 -0800 (PST), Matthew Ling
matthewlingch@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
does anyone know whether it is still required to register with NXP to
use I2C interface?
Have not been able to locate the registration link in NXP...
It's from the '80s, so no patents are in force. According to Wikipedia, "no
license fees are required" to implement the protocol (strange, since the
licenses *had* to have run out). It also mentions that NXP charges for
address allocation (why would anyone pay for that?).
Presumably it's a nominal handling fee. Having a central authority
control the address allocation ensures that random third-party devices
don't have address collisions, although certainly a strictly local to
the board use could get away with any address.
Yes, as you point out, they have supplied no mechanism for this. Seems XNPSadly, there doesn't seem to be any current information at NXP, as the
OP has noted. The links at http://ics.nxp.com/support/interface/ point
to
http://ics.nxp.com/interface/to/products/interface_control/i2c/licensing/
and
http://ics.nxp.com/interface/to/products/interface_control/i2c/support/requestform/
which each dead-end at a 404 Page Not Found.
The I2C manual (AN10216-01, from 2003) still notes "It is Philips's
position that all chips that can talk to the I2C bus must be licensed.
It does not matter how this interface is implemented. The licensed
manufacturer may use its own know how, purchased IP cores, or whatever.
This also applies to FPGAs. However, since the FPGAs are programmed by
the user, the user is considered a company that builds an I2C-IC and
would need to obtain the license from Philips."
....and then it's *NOT* I2C.On Friday, December 30, 2011 9:13:16 AM UTC-7, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Get real. With an address space of only seven bits, there *are* going to be
collisions. How the hell does NXP know what devices (and how many) of each
you're going to use? I see no purpose in "registration".
I2C is no longer used solely for its original purpose of intra-board, chip-to-chip communications, and a good example of a use that doesn't fit into that category and in which standardization of address assignment is very important is in the VESA Display Data Channel standard, which is the de-facto standard HW communications path for a number of popular video interfaces. Every VGA- and DVI-equipped PC monitor or graphics card shipped for quite some time uses the DDC interface, as does the popular digital-TV HDMI connection. Without having standardization of the addresses at which various DDC and other devices live within these sorts of systems, getting various products to talk to each other would be a nightmare. As it is, DDC-compatible components (such as EEROMs) can be made "prewired" to respond to the correct addresses.
Nonsense. ...and fix your line length.THAT'S why we still have "registration" in I2C-land. It clearly isn't all that important when you're just using I2C as a means of connecting chips within a wholly-custom design on a single PCB, but that is far from all there is to the subject.
I2C is no longer used solely for its original purpose of intra-board, chip-to-chip communications, and a good example of a use that doesn't fit into that category and in which standardization of address assignment is very important is in the VESA Display Data Channel standard, which is the de-facto standard HW communications path for a number of popular video interfaces. Every VGA- and DVI-equipped PC monitor or graphics card shipped for quite some time uses the DDC interface, as does the popular digital-TV HDMI connection. Without having standardization of the addresses at which various DDC and other devices live within these sorts of systems, getting various products to talk to each other would be a nightmare. As it is, DDC-compatible components (such as EEROMs) can be made "prewired" to respond to the correct addresses.Get real. With an address space of only seven bits, there *are* going to be
collisions. How the hell does NXP know what devices (and how many) of each
you're going to use? I see no purpose in "registration".
Ah, but it IS. And the example I gave remains a perfect example of why address registration is still required. And I'm speaking as someone who was directly involved in the development of the DDC and other similar standards (such as the old ACCESS.bus spec)....and then it's *NOT* I2C.
Get a real newsreader.Nonsense. ...and fix your line length.
You gave no reason at all. As usual, you're full of shit.On Friday, December 30, 2011 11:07:24 PM UTC-7, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
...and then it's *NOT* I2C.
Ah, but it IS. And the example I gave remains a perfect example of why address registration is still required. And I'm speaking as someone who was directly involved in the development of the DDC and other similar standards (such as the old ACCESS.bus spec).
Too funny, groupie.Nonsense. ...and fix your line length.
Get a real newsreader.
LOL!Get a real newsreader.
"As usual"? LOL...how long have YOU been around this group? And YOUR experience in the area of I2C and interface standards in general is what, exactly?You gave no reason at all. As usual, you're full of shit.
The fact that I am for the moment using Google Groups to access this group has nothing at all to do with the fact the someone complaining about "line length" must not have a particularly good reader (or else has one but doesn't know how to use it) themselves.Nonsense. ...and fix your line length.
Get a real newsreader.
Too funny, groupie.
A *LOT* longer than you, moron.On Sunday, January 1, 2012 10:33:31 PM UTC-7, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
You gave no reason at all. As usual, you're full of shit.
"As usual"? LOL...how long have YOU been around this group? And YOUR experience in the area of I2C and interface standards in general is what, exactly?
They were until you showed up. ...as usual.Nonsense. ...and fix your line length.
Get a real newsreader.
Too funny, groupie.
The fact that I am for the moment using Google Groups to access this group has nothing at all to do with the fact the someone complaining about "line length" must not have a particularly good reader (or else has one but doesn't know how to use it) themselves.
Run along, now, the adults are having a conversation.
Yes, of *course* you have."As usual"? LOL...how long have YOU been around this group? And YOUR experience in the area of I2C and interface standards in general is what, exactly?
A *LOT* longer than you, moron.