On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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? ... > > > > 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.
You mean, the obsolete 24c01, rather than the 24c01b or newer? > > 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. Right ... worth a comment in the chip ID table that 24c01b (and newer) entries really mean that, since the original 24c01 parts were broken by design (no on-wire chip address byte). - Dave _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
