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. Gavin _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
