on 21/11/2008 18:48 Gavin Atkinson said the following: > 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.
Darn it! Thank you! I also started to have doubts and almost came to conclusion that this is 6.X vs 7.X issue, because on my 6.X machine everything worked reasonably. But I now see that my 6.X machine has nfsmb and 7.X machines have ichsmb. PR link for convenience: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=100513 We have to settle to one addressing scheme or the other. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
