Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:16:29 +0100 From: Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: smbmsg(8): slave address confusion? Message-ID: <20081121161629.GJ99866@uriah.heep.sax.de> 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
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* -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081121161629.GJ99866>