Lpc2000

I can barely spell so never take me seriously, so yep :-) I agree 
its frustrating when its not defined well. 


--- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "bobbruce000" <bobbruce000@y...> 
wrote:
> --- In lpc2000@yahoogroups.com, "Lee Studley" <indigo_red@q...> 
wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> > I wouldnt really say this is a hardware bug, but a documentation
> > bug.
> 
> I guess that is one way to look at it.  So let me rephrase my
> question:
> 
>    The LPC2106 docs contain a bug, when they state that the pins
>    are readable even if an alternate funcion is enabled.
> 
>    The LPC2114 docs contain the same statement.  But is this
>    another "documentation bug", or does it accurately reflect
>    what the hardware actually does?
> 
> Happy now? ;-)
>  
> > Can you switch to GPIO, then get the level, then back as needed? 
> > Or will this cause a glitch.
> 
> No.  I cannot think of any way to do that reliably.  There is 
always
> a chance of missing a transition.
> 
> The only solution I can think of, is to dedicate additional pins,
> and have the signal go to a capture pin and also to a GPIO pin.
> Since I will have eight capture signals, that means I need to give
> up eight other pins, that I would rather use for other purposes.
> But I need to know before I etch a board, which is why I am asking.
> 
>     -bob