Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:48:32 +0000 From: Gavin Atkinson <gavin@FreeBSD.org> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Subject: Re: smbmsg(8): slave address confusion? Message-ID: <1227286112.40570.12.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20081121161629.GJ99866@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <4926BDE5.5020708@icyb.net.ua> <20081121161629.GJ99866@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 17:16 +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Andriy Gapon wrote: > > > Now: > > > > (0x44 << 1) & 0xff == (0xc4 << 1) & 0xff = 0x88 (looks like RTC) > > (0x50 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd0 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa0 (well known SPD addr) > > (0x52 << 1) & 0xff == (0xd2 << 1) & 0xff = 0xa4 (well known SPD addr) > > (0x80 << 1) & 0xff = 0x0 (mentioned above "global address") > > (0x88 << 1) & 0xff == MIN_I2C_ADDR = 0x10 (something weird) > > > > I think that this demonstrates that FreeBSD smb driver expects slave > > addresses in range 0x0-0x7f. > > Well, the machine I've been writing smbmsg(8) on has been a Sun E450 I > don't have access to any longer, so I cannot post a live example > output. However, I could swear the output did make sense on that > machine, i. e. the typical 0xa0 etc. addresses were populated there. > Basically, the 0xa0 example you can find in the EXAMPLES section of > the man page has been tailored after an actual session transcript made > on said Sun E450. (I'm not completely sure about the 0x70 example > anymore, this could be a hypothetical one.) > > So could that be a backend driver issue, so various backend drivers > use different addressing formats? *shudder* I believe this is the case, yes. See for example, PR kern/100513. It appears that some frivers treat the adfdress one way, and others treat it the other. Gavin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1227286112.40570.12.camel>