On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:33:25 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > AT24_FLAG_24C00 (doesn't really matter), and AT24C01 needs 128 > > > addresses?? (please, someone, prove me wrong) > > > > Why do you think so? My personal guess is that they simply forgot to > > mention the address in the datasheet. A chip responding to all > > addresses would prevent any other chip from being connected to the bus, > > that's impractical enough to be reasonably certain that no manufacturer > > did this. > > No I2C-address is mentioned in the whole datasheet; all the timing > diagrams put the memory offset to the place where one would expect the > I2C-address; the pins usually named A0-A2 are not connected...
Ooch. I didn't notice the timing diagrams... OMG. > Maybe it once made the chip one cent cheaper, I dunno, but I wouldn't be > that surprised :) Doesn't really matter for at24, luckily. Indeed. If this chip is the crazy thing you suspect (and I now fear you are correct), it's not compatible with the other EEPROMs, so we don't really care about it. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
