Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:08:24 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: stb@lassitu.de Cc: avg@icyb.net.ua, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: smb(4): address format Message-ID: <20090115.110824.298933043.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <FC7CC7A3-18D5-4408-8F52-62B9DF189A74@lassitu.de> References: <496C8C6A.2030708@icyb.net.ua> <FC7CC7A3-18D5-4408-8F52-62B9DF189A74@lassitu.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <FC7CC7A3-18D5-4408-8F52-62B9DF189A74@lassitu.de>
Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> writes:
: Am 13.01.2009 um 13:43 schrieb Andriy Gapon:
:
: > So, in practice, there two conventions of specifying a slave address:
: > either as 0XXXXXXXb or XXXXXXX0b.
:
: Device datasheets generally specify the hard-wired or configurable
: address as a bit string, with a slight preference to format that as
: bbbb bbb.
:
: > In wider world 0XXXXXXXb format seems to be preferred, Linux also
: > sticks
: > to it.
:
: I personally find having the address right-aligned a sensible choice.
: I think of the address as logical unit, and normally would rather have
: the SMBus bit banging abstracted away by the driver/hardware.
The format that is preferred on FreeBSD is xxxxxxxx0b. That's the
format that the existing IIC bridge drivers use and deal with. I've
not looked at the SMB drivers, but I went through all the iic bridge
drivers in the 6.x time frame and made sure they were all consistent.
If I missed the smb drivers, that's my bad.
I could find no evidence that there was a format that was more
preferred apart from the dozen data sheets that I'd read at the time
which used the xxxxxxx0b.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090115.110824.298933043.imp>