Terminology for Embedded Protocols

[Mtech1]

I have a quick question regarding the terminology used in common embedded protocols like UART, SPI, and I2C, and I would appreciate your input.

Which of the following phrasing is technically most accurate?

1. "The sender sends a bit, and the receiver receives it."
2. "The sender sets the line, and the receiver monitors it."
3. "The sender writes to the line, and the receiver reads it."

From my understanding, "The sender writes to the line, and the receiver reads it" seems most appropriate, especially for SPI and I2C. However, I would like to confirm if this aligns with your perspective or if there's a better phrasing.

 

[hexreader]

Only phrase 1 applies to UART, SPI, and I2C. Even this is arguable, as we normally refer to maybe a byte sent and received, all be it as bits on the "line"

SPI and I2C require at least 2 lines (by my own personal definition of "line"). I2C and SPI signals might be referred to as a "bus".

Phrase 3 is usually only true for I2C if the send address matches receiver address. Phrase 2 might well be true for I2C

We could argue all day over the meanings of poorly defined terms. Context is everything.

Can't think of better phrasing right now, but again, I would consider context before suggesting anything better

Trying to make all "embedded protocols" fit a generic description just causes confusion in my opinion, and is unhelpful to understanding

Just the term "embedded protocols" seems vague and almost meaningless to me

Sorry

Edit: if you are producing a paper, then maybe show us the relevant section of your paper to give context and perhaps allow me or others to give better ideas for improvement.

 

[barry]

It seems to me that you’re getting your bloomers in a bunch over nomenclature. Why are you asking this question? We need some context.