I have found over the years that except in speed-critical or multi-master applications, it's actually easier to bit-bang an I2C master than to try to use the I2C facilities built into many chips.
Note that if a device uses clock stretching, any time you release SCK, you must wait for it to actually go high. For simplicity, such delays are omitted from the following descriptions, but should be included if appropriate in your "release_SCK()" routine.
To start an I2C transaction, release SCK (if it isn't already) and, if the data line is low, assert SCK (drive it low), release SDA (if it isn't already), and release the SCK. Repeat this process up to nine times until SDA is high. If SDA is still low after nine repetitions, the bus is unusable.
To output each byte (including the address byte), assert SDA, and then for each bit repeat the sequence (assert SCK; set SDA high or low to match next bit of data; release SCK) eight times. After the last bit, assert SCK, release SDA, and release SCK. If SDA is low, a slave is acknowledging; if SDA is high, no slave is acknowledging and the transaction should be aborted.
When all output is complete, assert SCK, then SDA, and then release SCK, then SDA.
To input each byte, assert SDA, then release SCK if it isn't already (it will be for the first byte, but not others). Then reassert SCK, release SDA, and repeat the sequence (release SCK, read data bit, assert SCK) eight times. Note that at the end of this sequence, unlike when outputting a byte, SCK will be left asserted.
When all input is complete, release SDA (it should already already be released) and SCK.
Note that because the clock is left asserted after inputting each byte, it's not necessary to specify whether the byte should be ack'ed or nak'ed. If you read another byte, the last byte read will be nak'ed. If you terminate the read, it will be nak'ed.
Start; send address; write one byte, finish
SCK - -__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-- -__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__--- -__--
SDA(M) - __777666555444333222111___--- --777666555444333222111000---- --__-
SDA(S) - -------------------------??AA A------------------------??AAA A----
Start; send address; read two bytes; finish
SCK - -__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__--- -__--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--__ -__--_--_--_--_--_--_--_--__ _-
SDA(M) - __777666555444333222111------- __-------------------------- __-------------------------- --
SDA(S) - -------------------------??AAA A??77?66?55?44?33?22?11?00?? -??77?66?55?44?33?22?11?00?? ?-
Best Answer
From your code it looks like you are not waiting for SSPIF after setting the SEN. If I understand the data sheet correctly, you need to wait for SSPIF before attempting any 'next' operation, where START, ADDRESS, DATA and STOP are all operations. So it should be something like:
SSPIF was meant to be used from an interrupt handler, but you need a way to know that an operation is finished, so you might use it any way. If there is another signal that indicates the IIC operation is finished, you can use it as well.
Why I think your code 'almost' works is because setting SSPADD after SEN, gives the IIC engine time to complete START, so then sending the address works even though you did not wait for SSPIF. If you remove SSPADD (or move it), then two operations, START and ADDRESS are too close together, and the IIC engine ignores the ADDRESS command.