Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:21:27 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: smbmsg(8): slave address confusion? Message-ID: <4926C3E7.7010001@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4926BDE5.5020708@icyb.net.ua> References: <4926BDE5.5020708@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 21/11/2008 15:55 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> It seems that smbmsg is another victim in "Great SMBus Slave Address
> Confusion" - there are two schools: one that think that slave address is
> (addr >> 1) and there other thinks that slave address is (addr & ~0x1).
> It seems that smb driver in FreeBSD takes the first approach, but smbmsg
> is keen on the second.
Patch and new output:
diff --git a/usr.sbin/smbmsg/smbmsg.c b/usr.sbin/smbmsg/smbmsg.c
index 425b782..f2b8139 100644
--- a/usr.sbin/smbmsg/smbmsg.c
+++ b/usr.sbin/smbmsg/smbmsg.c
@@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ static unsigned short oword, iword;
* 240 are reserved. Address 0 is the global address, but we do not
* care for this detail.
*/
-#define MIN_I2C_ADDR 16
-#define MAX_I2C_ADDR 240
+#define MIN_I2C_ADDR 8
+#define MAX_I2C_ADDR 120
static int do_io(void);
static int getnum(const char *s);
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ probe_i2c(void)
printf("Probing for devices on %s:\n", dev);
- for (addr = MIN_I2C_ADDR; addr < MAX_I2C_ADDR; addr += 2) {
+ for (addr = MIN_I2C_ADDR; addr < MAX_I2C_ADDR; addr++) {
c.slave = addr;
flags = 0;
if (ioctl(fd, SMB_RECVB, &c) != -1)
$ smbmsg -p
Probing for devices on /dev/smb0:
Device @0x08: w
Device @0x44: rw
Device @0x50: rw
Device @0x52: rw
Device @0x69: rw
The only thing I am hesitant about - which address format is to present
to user? (addr >> 1) as above or (addr & ~0x1) as conventional for linux
folk.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4926C3E7.7010001>