Active HIGH / Active LOW

Hi, There chips with the mixture of Active HIGH and Active LOW signals. Is there any pros and cons of each levels? OR it simply choice of designers / manufacturers?

Thanks in advance.

Regards, Muthu

Reply to
muthusnv
Loading thread data ...

I believe for TTL there is some advantage to active low for enables and such. TTL has much better current sinks than current sources. I don't believe the advantage is as big, if any, for CMOS but may have been kept for backward compatibility reasons.

-- glen

Reply to
glen herrmannsfeldt

Yes the designer can define a signal to be active High or active Low - it's his choice.

However... In general P type devices switch slower than N type. This means that many devices have slightly different rise and fall times - eg the fall time 5V->0V is faster than the rise time 0V->5V. This means that if you need a fast edge for a signal (lets call it a "Ready" signal) then you use the falling edge because thats faster. Therefore its natural to define Ready = True = 0V. That makes it an Active Low signal.

Reply to
CWatters

I may be out of date but... it used to be the case that P type devices were roughly half as fast as N type. They got the edges symetrical in CMOS logic families by making the P channel FET twice the size of the N channel FET.

Reply to
CWatters

Unconnected TTL inputs are interpreted as logic high. Hence it is more convenient to define the active level of control signals as logic low and allow the designers to simply not connect the pins carrying those signals if they don't need them. Also, if a cable is unplugged from a board the inputs read high (not active) and the board does not attempt to do anything unexpected.

Active low is also commonly used for signals with multiple drivers, e.g., interrupt request lines. In this case there is a pull-up resistor and open-collector or open-drain drivers that pull the singnal low.

My 2c.

-- Georgi

Reply to
Georgi Beloev

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.