<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Minimum SPI Delay after Transfer on MPC5644A in MPC5xxx</title>
    <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/MPC5xxx/Minimum-SPI-Delay-after-Transfer-on-MPC5644A/m-p/389347#M508</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In MPC5644A DSPI module, CTARn[PDT and DT] can be configured to set a delay inserted between chip select negation and next chip select assertion. As opposed to other timing configurations, the datasheet does not impose any minimum on this value. Can I then assume the smallest that it's possible to configure in the registers will be ok for the MCU? (i.e. PDT=00 and DT=00, which yields a delay of 1 * 2 * 1/fsys)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:30:42 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>EAlepins</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-12-03T16:30:42Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Minimum SPI Delay after Transfer on MPC5644A</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/MPC5xxx/Minimum-SPI-Delay-after-Transfer-on-MPC5644A/m-p/389347#M508</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In MPC5644A DSPI module, CTARn[PDT and DT] can be configured to set a delay inserted between chip select negation and next chip select assertion. As opposed to other timing configurations, the datasheet does not impose any minimum on this value. Can I then assume the smallest that it's possible to configure in the registers will be ok for the MCU? (i.e. PDT=00 and DT=00, which yields a delay of 1 * 2 * 1/fsys)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="min-height: 8pt; padding: 0px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:30:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/MPC5xxx/Minimum-SPI-Delay-after-Transfer-on-MPC5644A/m-p/389347#M508</guid>
      <dc:creator>EAlepins</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-03T16:30:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Minimum SPI Delay after Transfer on MPC5644A</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/MPC5xxx/Minimum-SPI-Delay-after-Transfer-on-MPC5644A/m-p/389348#M509</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;yes, it is OK for the MCU. It depends rather on slave if it is able to accept such short delay between the chip select assertion.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Lukas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:13:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/MPC5xxx/Minimum-SPI-Delay-after-Transfer-on-MPC5644A/m-p/389348#M509</guid>
      <dc:creator>lukaszadrapa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-12-05T09:13:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

