you are the person who is asking for assistance assistance not me, I am probably not the best person to provide that answer but was at least trying to steer you in the right direction for someone else to help
no in the post I replied to there was no mention of the device you have since provided that info and a read of the data sheet suggests you need to send a string of bytes to the correct device address, those bytes appear to be register/data pairs
no it is the reply to my suggestion that you identified the device you cant even keep your trolling straight
you have just proved you cannot even maintain a basic time frame
I already know I was going to look at this as a mental challenge during the quiet Christmas week but now know it would be a waste of time
--
In the Beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
(Lords and Ladies)
And you are the person who thought he should reply. As such we *both* have our responsibilities.
No, you didn't . You mentioned a "silly idea" - which felt as you mocking me - urging me to provide specific information which, as I now may understand, you had *zero* idea about if it would be helpfull to the question in case, and in a direction which indicated you didn't even understand the problem to begin with.
So, I called you out and offered you my challenge.
The post which you replied to with "tell me the device you want to talk to" (as quoted) certainly already contained the answer to that question.
I could already communicate whith the device before I posted my question. Its not *that* hard.
The question was about *how to minimize transient memory usage*. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, sure. See above.
:-) I already mentioned that my challenge to you was to try to get you to see where you erred. That you now consider it to be "a waste of time" is, as far as I can tell, you keeping your eyes shut and your ears covered while yelling "la la la" -- a juviniles way of expressing that they refuse to listen to anything thats being brought forward.
Lets face it kid, you asked for and I gave to you the device I am working with in my first reply to you, and I still have to see your first reference, let alone anything specific in regard to using that device.
You mentioned trolling ? You could well be one yourself. Telling people you can probably help hem if they give you more information, but than not even *trying* to actually do so.
[quote] Just regard it as a second address byte - which is actually a thing - indicating one outof 65536 devices. Hmmm ... Is there a possibility to set a two-byte device adddress ? [quote]
In regard to the above I was wrong. There is something (I forgot all about) that will cause my idea of just sending two bytes to a device, and than have it accepted as a single address byte and the first data byte to fail. So, that idea is out.
NO you are cvonfucsing Addresses INTERNAL to the DEVICE, which as far as I2C bus is concerned is just data being sent to the device.
I2C addressing is limited to TWO modes 7 bit addressing and 10 bit addressing, which uses RESERVED 7 bit addresses (in hex 78 to 7F) for I2C expansion. 10 bit addressing uses a first byte of hex 78 to 7B, where 7C to 7F are reserved for future expansion. FEW devices actually use 10 bit addressing.
I2C does NOT support 16 bit addressing by adding another byte to the address
Your device MIGHT support INTERNALLY 16 bit addressing that dpends on the device NOT I2C.
Fine if you don't know what the device requires then any special conditions like RESTART sequence will potentially be a problem to you.
The important word was AND.
Fine carry on with your delusions as I have made MANY things work on I2C on MANY platforms and many systems down to small micros for over 20 years. You have been given advice and if you think you know all the answers then carry on but I won't bother nor will probably others
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Logic Gate Education
Timing Diagram Font
For those web sites you hate
I don't think so I'm well aware about what the difference is (what they are used for) between the "device address" and the "target port".
If you say so (disagreeing with someone who only repeats his stance while not providing any other, supporting info is rather pointless, don't you think ?).
No, it won't. Simple because my stated problem does not lie *anywhere* near to it.
You're alike someone explaining a problem with planes to someone driving a car. While those problems might well exist, they are of no consequence to him. Do you get my drift ?
:-) That was important to/for *your* story, not mine.
To me it looks like as if the problem is the device driver itself (the lack of implementation of a certain capability), and just it.
Good for you. What makes you think that I could not have a similar background ? Should I now boast about my prowess, and try to outshine you ? Why ? What difference would it make ?
Also, *please* go read the problem description again. It has got *very* little to do with I2C or its hardware. The *only* reason I mentioned it was that I wanted to make clear that its just a *tad* different from most other devices, as it uses start and stop conditions.
that was an explanation as to why we wanted it & later in my reply I made the statement the data sheet seemed fairly straight forward, which would indicate not only had i seen the device but even taken the time to look it up
i tried to move things forward by geting you to provide the group with full information (i believe I even said WE not I may be able to help)
you have a history of asking incomplete questions & then requiring more & more information untill it becomes apparent that you did not understand the basics which your original question implied, at which point it is the fault of this newsgroup because we did not give fUll instructions.
--
Why you say you no bunny rabbit when you have little powder-puff tail?
-- The Tasmanian Devil
And by the way you have not even told us what language you are programming in, no doubt you would get on your high horse about being presented with a solution in scratch although for all we know you could be using fortran or even assembler
--
After Snow White used a couple rolls of film taking pictures of
the
seven dwarfs, she mailed the roll to be developed. Later she was heard to
sing, "Some day my prints will come."
Bullshit. *You* wanted something, even though you had absolutily zero kelvin idea about if it was actually usable.
To be honest, I can even believe that.
Kiddo, you where in *no* position to determine if I had-or-had-not already posted that "full information", but you could not care less and tried show off. Which in turn pissed me off.
You see, I take my responsibilities as the one who asks the question rather seriously, and try to make it as concise as I can: providing all the relevant info, while removing as much of the cruft as possible.
So, you got challenged. All you had to do was to fess up, and I would have let you off the hook. But no, you just kept digging.
And here you are now, throwing mud and hoping it will stick.
Kiddo, if you *really* want to help someone with a problem, than keep your mouth shut when you realize that you have no idea to what actually has been asked.
Regards, Rudy Wieser
P.s.
You got me there I'm afraid. So, tell me: How would knowing it help you ? :-)
I had read your previous posts so I do know you had not provided anything like enough information
unfortunatly your pruning also removed much of the important data such as
Which device you were trying to talk to (& yes that is important so that we know what data it expects & in what format) what programming language you were using & what device you were using to comunicate with it (although as this is a raspberry pie forum we would assume a raspberry but even that is in doubt)
I think you thread on GUI programming proves my point completely, you asked a question on a relatively complex issue & then it became apparent that you did not know anything about the Linux GUI subsystems
it might help you as I doubt a solution written in Scratch (or even python although tat would be more useful) would meet your requirements.
I notice no-one else can be bothered to continue responding & the good news is neither shall I
--
Patageometry, n.:
The study of those mathematical properties that are invariant
under brain transplants.
Yes, I used past tense here. As in: the moment where he thought it was prudent to declare more information should be offered by me.
I'm also not really sure if it's past *perfect* tense, as he still seems to think that asking for the involved I2C device was a good idea - even though now he's got it he has no clue what to use it for. :-)
Duh! At that moment I was a novice in regard to both the Pi as well as C, which I explicitily stated. Are you really as moronic as to expect somone in such a position to know what exactly he needs to ask ? Really ?
And you mean that I, as the asker needed to know *exactly* what to ask, but you as the one replying needs to know *absolutily nothing*, but can still open your mouth to say whatever bounces between your ears, even though you have no idea what the question is about ? Are you really *that* hypocrite ? (yes, you are) :-((
Also, if I would have know exactly what to ask for, don't you think I would have not just dropped that whole "you just need to read the documentation!" (rather frustrating) thread and would have done a few (easy, 'cause I would know what I was looking for) google searches ?
What I got outof that whole thread was a (begrudingly) "yes, GTK is probably the best choice", an "did you use apt-get update first" and ... Well, nothing much more than a *lot* of "just go read the documentation", and ignoring of simple pertinent questions (like "you said 'package manager'. Where can I find it and how do I get it to return the installed packages").
I still get angry thinking about it you know, thank you very much for making me remember it. :-(
Kiddo, you starting to get obnoxious. I mentioned that device in my first reply to you, and I have not seen you use that info. And no, that info is
*not* important. If for nothing else than the absense of you using it proves it.
And don't come back with "but somebody else could maybe use it", as that would simply prove that you where just asking for random info, without knowing if it would be applicable to the problem (you are in a lose-lose situation there I'm afraid).
And you lost again. Remembering I said, "*any* answer which is specific to that device and cannot be used in a generic way means you automatically loose."
You sure aren't a donky, as it normally never hits the same stone twice. :-)
Absolutily true. And something which specifically I mentioned in my intital post. That you are thumping on it means that you either did not actually read, let alone absorb the question (but what else is new ?), or are, regardless of knowing that I said it, trying to make an issue outof it (maybe hoping I had forgotten that I did). :-(
Well, why don't you come up with a suggestion ? Than I could have realized that I had forgotten to specifically* mention the language I am using, apologized for having omitted it and have mentioned it there-and-than. Not much of a biggie.
*Though I doubt it that either "call 'write' " or "using ioctl" to set the device address is used in either of the above languages. Guess what it
*is* used in. :-)
Than again, for someone who's looking for something, *anything* to take a jab with it seems to be enough.
I think you missed that one of the other brances of this conversation tree already provided a suggestion in the direction I indicated wanted it in, and that it could not work as the I2C device driver has not implemented a certain needed method.
The only reason I was still talking to you is because I find it rather hard to just walk away and let the other sudder in the good-for-nothing stew he created. I *still* seem to think that that is just plain rude, and that reason always prevails. Alas, the latter seldom happens.
But yes, I think its a good idea. So, best wishes for the new year, and goodbye.
Regards, Rudy Wieser
P.s. Did I already mention that I had experience ? Yes, with pretty much the same kind of people like you have proven to be, causing me in the end not being a single iota wiser than at the beginning (being a pure waste of time in that regard).
Oh well. I've now worked with wiringPi and sysfs. Lets see what the bcm2853 API has to offer me.
It seems that you're looking for gather write system call, it writes from multiple buffers in a single system call. The call to look for is writev(). Read its man page or google for it.
To be honest, I am not really certain what I am looking for. Just a method,
*any* method which could (at least) be used to send the "target port" (double) byte and the following data as two seperate data parts.
Andrew Gabriel mentioned the same.
Alas, when I tried it it didn't want to work for me - I looked at the I2C bus signals using an oscilloscope, and could see that each of the data writes still had its own start and end signals.
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.