Hello,
I am learning about different communication protocols and i would just want some clarity on the term protocol. I 've seen this question all over but yet one thing does not seem to make sense.
The term protocol i do understand, it is a set of rules, an arrangement of agreements on how things are suppose to happen. This does make sense, for example SPI is a communication protocol, where one "rule" is how the MASTER/SLAVE relationship is made up, another "rule" is that they share the same clock signal making it a synchronous form of communication etc. I mean protocol is not a bound term to a specific tech-thing, but is more of a general term to me.
And i figure, even for SPI, obviously there has to be some adapted hardware to make this possible, as well as software. (You can't just make a wish and there you go)
So, reading on about UART first thing that pops up is, that it is a circuit, whether it be a stand-alone IC or part of another circuit. It explains on hardware level how it works and that's it. That it uses certain hardware for allowing a type of communication is more or less obvious to me. Actually, UART is the only communication-type i can wrap my head around, everything seems logical.
Now, what i don't understand, is that everywhere they distinguish the two: "UART is not a protocol but a piece of hardware, while SPI is a communication protocol"
So what i am wondering:
UART also has to follow a certain "protocol" in terms of how the communication is setup to happen? So there has to be some form of protocol?
And how come SPI does not imply to a certain piece of hardware, is it possible to implement it "universally" in most systems with a processor and GPIO's?
Appreciate any answers.
I am learning about different communication protocols and i would just want some clarity on the term protocol. I 've seen this question all over but yet one thing does not seem to make sense.
The term protocol i do understand, it is a set of rules, an arrangement of agreements on how things are suppose to happen. This does make sense, for example SPI is a communication protocol, where one "rule" is how the MASTER/SLAVE relationship is made up, another "rule" is that they share the same clock signal making it a synchronous form of communication etc. I mean protocol is not a bound term to a specific tech-thing, but is more of a general term to me.
And i figure, even for SPI, obviously there has to be some adapted hardware to make this possible, as well as software. (You can't just make a wish and there you go)
So, reading on about UART first thing that pops up is, that it is a circuit, whether it be a stand-alone IC or part of another circuit. It explains on hardware level how it works and that's it. That it uses certain hardware for allowing a type of communication is more or less obvious to me. Actually, UART is the only communication-type i can wrap my head around, everything seems logical.
Now, what i don't understand, is that everywhere they distinguish the two: "UART is not a protocol but a piece of hardware, while SPI is a communication protocol"
So what i am wondering:
UART also has to follow a certain "protocol" in terms of how the communication is setup to happen? So there has to be some form of protocol?
And how come SPI does not imply to a certain piece of hardware, is it possible to implement it "universally" in most systems with a processor and GPIO's?
Appreciate any answers.