Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:36:28 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: smb(4): address format Message-ID: <200901210936.28773.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <49772F44.1030806@icyb.net.ua> References: <496C8C6A.2030708@icyb.net.ua> <200901210857.22204.jhb@freebsd.org> <49772F44.1030806@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 9:20:52 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 21/01/2009 15:57 John Baldwin said the following: > > On Friday 16 January 2009 8:17:26 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 15/01/2009 20:08 M. Warner Losh said the following: > >>> 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. > >> What about the attached patch. > >> It brings ichsmb in line with this format and also adds a simple check > >> into smb(4). > > > > Commit! > > > > I guess this would also need a note in UPDATING and some HEADS UP in > current@. Sure, though I had a hard time getting people to test the locking changes to the smbus(4) drivers, so I doubt many current@ users actually use smbus(4). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901210936.28773.jhb>