Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:20:53 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: inconsistent addressing of smb slaves Message-ID: <492FF035.3060308@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4926EC94.8060609@icyb.net.ua> References: <4926BDE5.5020708@icyb.net.ua> <20081121161629.GJ99866@uriah.heep.sax.de> <1227286112.40570.12.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <4926EC94.8060609@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 21/11/2008 19:15 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 21/11/2008 18:48 Gavin Atkinson said the following: >> 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. > > Darn it! Thank you! > I also started to have doubts and almost came to conclusion that this is > 6.X vs 7.X issue, because on my 6.X machine everything worked > reasonably. But I now see that my 6.X machine has nfsmb and 7.X machines > have ichsmb. > > PR link for convenience: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=100513 > > We have to settle to one addressing scheme or the other. I did some searching through code and it seems that only ichsmb is a black sheep, all others seem to be consistent with each other. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?492FF035.3060308>