This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Functional difference depending on how IMU is connected?
#1
Assuming they are both connected properly, would there be  a functional difference between an ICM20948 IMU connected directly to the MacArthur HAT on the IMU pads, and one connected to the I2C port with a quality short cable?
Reply
#2
The IMU header and QWIIC connector both expose the same I2C bus. So, no functional difference whether you use one or the other.
Reply
#3
(2024-04-17, 04:58 AM)Adrian Wrote: The IMU header and QWIIC connector both expose the same I2C bus. So, no functional difference whether you use one or the other.

I decided to mount mine separate from the MacArthur hat just for ease of calibrating.
Reply
#4
(2024-04-17, 06:16 AM)Lazzz Wrote:
(2024-04-17, 04:58 AM)Adrian Wrote: The IMU header and QWIIC connector both expose the same I2C bus. So, no functional difference whether you use one or the other.

I decided to mount mine separate from the MacArthur hat just for ease of calibrating.

Exactly my thought as well - thanks for confirming.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)