Talk:Wishbone (computer bus)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Rather than saying that a WB is a "hardware computer bus" I would say that it is a "bus interface" since the standard doesn't prescribe any bus, i.e. the same given WB interface can be connected to many different kind of buses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.17.191 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be too picky, but the graphics on this page are kind of crude, and would probably best not be in JPEG format... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, most of the graphics is printsreened from the Wishbone specification PDF. --Volodymyr Obrizan (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to the Avalon Bus

It is slightly weird that the description of Wishbone is based on a comparison with the Altera Avalon bus (interconnect fabric), especially since Wikipedia doesn't contain an entry about Avalon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.39.122 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

impossibility of this mapping between Wishbone and Avalon

I don't know what is Avalon. But because of formulas written on this article, only cyc and we can not be used to recombine to write_n and read_n. Given two compound propositions composed of proposition variables p and q and different from p and q, if you want to get p and q back from only that two compound propositions, then that two compound propositions must be that one is "p xor q" or "p ↔ q" and another one is p, q, ~p or ~q.

Sorry for my poor English.--LungZeno (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the specification , it appears that the comparison is incomplete/unclear but valid. For example, CYC_O input (master to slave) and CYC_I output (slave to master) both indicate a valid bus cycle in progress - hence the comparison to both Avalon write and read commands. A similar situation for WE_O and WE_I.

I've added the relevant pages of the specification as a reference to partially support this section. May come back later with a reference for the Avalon architecture to fully substantiate. Crmccull000 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]