Am 30.12.2015 um 06:37 schrieb Matthias Urlichs:
> On 30.12.2015 06:02, Jan Kandziora wrote:
>> is it possible to create a Onewire->I²C bridge with your MOAT? If
>> possible as a drop-in replacement of the DS28E17, at least from onewire
>> view?
>
> I see no immediate technical problem with either mimicing the 'E17 or
> adding a I²C bus channel to the MoaT protocol (or more than one;
> bit-banging an I²C master is not exactly rocket science). An I²C master
> can be written without interrupt handling, so there are no timing issues
> to be considered.
>
> MoaT (the on-AVR part) needs an I²C master implementation anyway, to
> talk to environment sensors, port extenders, etc.
>
Fine. That would justify it for me to create the driver pair.
> Personally I'd rather use the MoaT mode, for legal reasons --
> Maxim probably doesn't like us to mimic in-production ICs.
>
I don't think there is a problem, as the DS28E17 clearly targets a
professional audience, and the MOAT targets hobbyists. We are out of
their focus completely. If I had to justify my decisions as a developer
(a burden I struggled free from years ago) I'd stick to the Maxim
product *always*, because they give short and exact figures, while the
MOAT requires me to build up more extensive knowlegde about its
workings, which my successor won't have.
Maxim needs to have some Linux kernel driver anyway for the DS28E17,
given it will soon be built into battery packs and the like. So creating
that one for them should keep them clear from rocking the boat.
But okay, as soon the I²C tunneling framework is done, it should be easy
to support both the MOAT and the DS28E17.
Kind regards
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Owfs-developers mailing list
Owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owfs-developers
