User talk:184.170.184.17

November 2023
Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Serial Peripheral Interface have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The article uses non-standard terminology because of some objection to the words Master and Slave. Non-standard terminology makes things worse not better.
 * I'm an engineering manager and any coder who refers to the bus master as a main and a slave device as a sub will be asked to use standard terminology. Refusal or persisting in using the wrong terminology will result in the person being terminated for cause.
 * Try making up your own terminology if you are a lawyer or a mathematician and see how far that gets you. Engineering is no different.  A bus master was first defined in approximately 1959 for MIL-STD-1553 and it was later changed to bus controller since the use conflicted with what was then commonly understood as a master, something with absolute control over bus and the target devices.
 * A bus master is a device that cannot be 'disobeyed' and a 'slave' is bus device that has no autonomy and is entirely dependent on the controller or master. MISO, MOSI have old, established meanings as well as bus masters and slave devices.  This is the situation in the SPI bus.  Other busses are different and controller may be appropriate.
 * The terms 'main' and 'sub' have no meaning in terms of the SPI bus and are constructions to maintain the standard names of MISO and MOSI. Since you seem to be curating the page please adopt standard, accurate terminology.   As I said, the current article does nothing but confuse the issue and no amount of wishful terminology will change 40+ years of engineering documents and practice.
 * Your article on the 1553 bus is historically inaccurate with the dates but some documentation may not be publicly visible. The bus was first used on nuclear weapons enabled aircraft and was distributed to contractors in 1959.  The controlling documents were made public in the seventies.
 * Thanks for your attention. 184.170.184.17 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot something important. The bus definition is a proprietary document and subject to copyright.  Abusing the standard acronyms is probably a legal no-no.  GP-IB and other busses such as I2C have standard terminology and I have seen legal action over adulteration of the terminology.  In fact, while employed at Intersil we were sued by Phillips for using I2C terminology for a non-compliant bus since we did not have a license to call our implementation I2C.  I doubt that the successors of Motorola will sue you for adulterating the terminology of their invention but it is not legally out of the question.  In the early days of Intel's use of SPI busses Motorola did in fact sue Intel over the non-standard implementation of the bus.  Intel made further changes until their version was not interoperable with the Motorola version.  It is the origin of MODE0, MODE1, MODE2 and MODE3 of timing on SPI buses. 184.170.184.17 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)