| General > General Technical Chat |
| 'Master' and 'slave': Tech terms face scrutiny amid anti-racism efforts |
| << < (130/352) > >> |
| tom66:
The lack of master and slave on UART has caused numerous problems for me. It's never clear whether TX on a schematic is the *transmit out*, or *transmit signal in*. I know most engineers use the former, but it's not consistent. Edit: grammar/syntax |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: tom66 on June 21, 2020, 08:07:03 am --- --- Quote from: SilverSolder on June 20, 2020, 07:55:35 pm ---It seems to me the far right and the far left share the same trait of having their "eyes wide shut". People somewhere in the middle, trying to make things work, are rarely the problem. --- End quote --- The problem with "enlightened centrism" is it fails to get anything worthwhile done. You need a bit of a radical twinge to make the changes that are necessary to society. --- End quote --- The problem is that "radical twinges" often makes bad changes... because they tend not to have broad based support. Perhaps the best systems just provide a framework to let people do their own thing... |
| Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: tom66 on June 21, 2020, 11:11:44 am ---The lack of master and slave on UART has caused numerous problems for me. It's never clear whether TX on a schematic is the *transmit out*, or *transmit signal in*. I know most engineers use the former, but it's not consistent. --- End quote --- TX is always output, RX is always input. Using name "TX" as "transmit signal in" sounds like an error, unless it's just a signal between the transmitting device and the physical interface driver chip. With two communicating devices, another's TX is connected to another's RX, so netnames for the parties involved, as well as labels on the connectors are easy: TX for the output, RX for the input. Low-level communication, what comes to "uart" without flow control as is most usual today, is bidirectional and completely equal, there is no master or slave. In many cases though, one party clearly initiates things while another responds, but this is on a higher (application) level than the UART communication, so it doesn't matter in schematics or even UART peripheral configuration. The only thing that requires more consideration, is how to name the signals in the cable between the parties. Because other end is TX, and other is RX, this can't be called either RX or TX. If the cable is a "dumb" crossover cable, naming does not matter at all, but for application specific harnesses - including the case this "cable" is just a PCB trace between two devices on the same PCB and needs a netname - you need to come up with something like "cpu_to_modem" and "modem_to_cpu", or "master_to_slave", if you think that describes the higher-level use the best. Then, it's obvious that cpu tx is an output driving net cpu_to_modem, and modem rx is an input pin reading that net. |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on June 21, 2020, 11:58:55 am --- --- Quote from: tom66 on June 21, 2020, 11:11:44 am ---The lack of master and slave on UART has caused numerous problems for me. It's never clear whether TX on a schematic is the *transmit out*, or *transmit signal in*. I know most engineers use the former, but it's not consistent. --- End quote --- TX is always output, RX is always input. Using name "TX" as "transmit signal in" sounds like an error, unless it's just a signal between the transmitting device and the physical interface driver chip. [...] --- End quote --- You know that, and I know that, but it seems many developers/designers in the Far East have not been let in on the secret, judging by the number of USB to Serial converter boards I have seen that confuses the two! |
| Simon:
Yes confusion is a problem, and yes once half the language has been banned everything will just be called "thing", then we will all know exactly what we are talking about. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |