smbmsg(8): slave address confusion?

Joerg Wunsch j at uriah.heep.sax.de
Fri Nov 21 08:35:14 PST 2008


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. ;-)


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list