Can anybody explain how NETMF initiates a reponse from a slave device. Normaly I would send a dummy write 0x00 but I cannot see anything on the slave side using NETMF? Or post a link to where I can find the answer. Hmmm, I may know the answer now I have written the question down, but I will leave the question.
Usually device responds based on what you send to it. It depends on the device. What kind of device is it?
Just another uC, I knew that would be the answer, you just need a dummy write for the last piece of data. I had a mental block, and could not see the wood for the trees. I was sure of the answer once I had written the question.
Thanks anyway for the reply.
No problem! ;D
Does the SPI Lib control the function of the SS pin? If I define the constructor as,
SPI Spi = new SPI(new SPI.Configuration(Cpu.Pin.GPIO_Pin10, true, 1, 0, false, false, 1000, SPI.SPI_module.SPI1));
I do not need to control the action of GPIO_Pin10, it’s auto SS?
That is correct.
Well that flushed the rat out of the hole! I rushed to the circuit diag. to find I had made a pin translation error, and was thinking I had stuffed a cpu pin ;D (D this and IO that). It’s true what they say, when everything else fails, read the dam manual :-[ or get a new life and ride the waves 8)
Questions regarding the 3rd and 4th params of the constructor, setup and release delays of SS.
- Are the unit values in uSecs?
- Or are the unit values related to the SCLK value, ie are the unit values SCLK ticks?
These are in milliseconds
That was my assumed value, but I dont see mSecs when looking with a scope. I will check again.
I based my answer on the official documentation which states “milliseconds” for ChipSelect_SetupTime.
Just checked PortingKit source code and it looks like it is in microseconds actually.
Documentation must be wrong.
Thanks that will save me buying a new pair of glasses. I was playing with values last night and got a constraint exception with regard to Thread.Sleep I had the numbers set the same, ie 500 setup delay and 500mS thread sleep, I changed the setup delay to 400 and the exception went away, may be a bug? Dont ask about the numbers I just do these things. ;D