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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090115.110824.298933043.imp>