On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:59:08AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:00:58 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > This patch adds support to write block data to i2cset.
> >
> > I tried to limit the changes as much as possible. Detecting new write modes
> > is a bit tricky since the command supports an undocumented parameter (mask)
> > after the mode.
>
> This can go away if it bothers you. This was the old way to pass the
> mask value. I have implemented -m meanwhile, and this is what people
> should be using by now. I added it 2 years ago, so I think it's
> acceptable to stop supporting the legacy way.
>
Would be a separate patch. Also, the current code accepts nonsense parameters
(such as comments) after the mode parameter. Not sure if I want to change that.
> > So I decided to handle block data first and bypass the rest
> > of the parameter handling code.
> >
> > Guenter
> >
> > --
> > Index: tools/i2cset.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- tools/i2cset.c (revision 5909)
> > +++ tools/i2cset.c (working copy)
> > @@ -35,13 +35,15 @@
> > static void help(void)
> > {
> > fprintf(stderr,
> > - "Usage: i2cset [-f] [-y] [-m MASK] I2CBUS CHIP-ADDRESS
> > DATA-ADDRESS [VALUE] [MODE]\n"
> > + "Usage: i2cset [-f] [-y] [-m MASK] I2CBUS CHIP-ADDRESS
> > DATA-ADDRESS [VALUE] ... [MODE]\n"
> > " I2CBUS is an integer or an I2C bus name\n"
> > " ADDRESS is an integer (0x03 - 0x77)\n"
> > " MODE is one of:\n"
> > " c (byte, no value)\n"
> > " b (byte data, default)\n"
> > " w (word data)\n"
> > + " i (I2C block data)\n"
> > + " s (SMBus block data)\n"
> > " Append p for SMBus PEC\n");
> > exit(1);
> > }
> > @@ -78,6 +80,19 @@
> > return -1;
> > }
> > break;
> > +
> > + case I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA:
> > + if (!(funcs & I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BLOCK_DATA)) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, MISSING_FUNC_FMT, "SMBus block read");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + case I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA:
> > + if (!(funcs & I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_I2C_BLOCK)) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, MISSING_FUNC_FMT, "I2C block read");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > + break;
>
> Why are you testing READ functionalities when what you want to do is
> WRITE?
>
Typical cut-and-paste error.
> > }
> >
> > if (pec
> > @@ -90,7 +105,7 @@
> > }
> >
> > static int confirm(const char *filename, int address, int size, int
> > daddress,
> > - int value, int vmask, int pec)
> > + int value, int vmask, unsigned char *block, int len, int pec)
>
> The block pointer could be const.
>
Ok.
> > {
> > int dont = 0;
> >
> > @@ -109,7 +124,16 @@
> > "0x%02x, data address\n0x%02x, ", filename, address, daddress);
> > if (size == I2C_SMBUS_BYTE)
> > fprintf(stderr, "no data.\n");
> > - else
> > + else if (size == I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA ||
> > + size == I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA) {
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + fprintf(stderr, "data");
> > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > + fprintf(stderr, " 0x%02x", block[i]);
> > + fprintf(stderr, ", mode %s.\n", size == I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA
> > + ? "smbus block" : "i2c block");
> > + } else
> > fprintf(stderr, "data 0x%02x%s, mode %s.\n", value,
> > vmask ? " (masked)" : "",
> > size == I2C_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA ? "byte" : "word");
> > @@ -136,6 +160,8 @@
> > int pec = 0;
> > int flags = 0;
> > int force = 0, yes = 0, version = 0, readback = 0;
> > + unsigned char block[32];
>
> It might make sense to use I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX instead of hard-coding
> 32?
>
Ok.
> > + int len;
> >
> > /* handle (optional) flags first */
> > while (1+flags < argc && argv[1+flags][0] == '-') {
> > @@ -180,6 +206,30 @@
> > help();
> > }
> >
> > + /* check for block data */
> > + len = 0;
> > + if (argc > flags + 5) {
>
> This makes it impossible to write 1-byte blocks, right? This is bad.
>
No, it is the same check used for 'b' and 'w'. I tested it, and it works.
> > + switch (argv[argc-1][0]) {
> > + case 's': size = I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA; break;
> > + case 'i': size = I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA; break;
> > + default:
> > + size = 0;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + if (size == I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA || size ==
> > I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA) {
> > + pec = argv[argc-1][1] == 'p';
>
> ip isn't a valid mode. PEC is not defined for non-SMBus transactions
> (and despite its name, I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA read and writes are not
> SMBus transactions.
>
Ok, I added an error check.
> > + for (len = 0; len < (int)sizeof(block) && len + flags +
> > 5 < argc; len++) {
>
> Do you actually need the cast?
>
Yes, at least with recent versions of gcc. sizeof() is an unsigned and len is
an int,
so without the cast gcc warns about a signed-unsigned comparison.
I could change len to be unsigned, but then it starts complaining about
comparisons
of len against other variables, so I'd rather stick with the typecast.
> > + value = strtol(argv[flags + len + 4], &end, 0);
> > + if (*end || value < 0 || value > 0xff) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, "Error: Block data
> > value invalid!\n");
> > + help();
> > + }
> > + block[len] = value;
> > + }
> > + goto dofile;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > if (argc > flags + 4) {
> > if (!strcmp(argv[flags+4], "c")
> > || !strcmp(argv[flags+4], "cp")) {
> > @@ -236,6 +286,7 @@
> > help();
> > }
> >
> > +dofile:
> > file = open_i2c_dev(i2cbus, filename, sizeof(filename), 0);
> > if (file < 0
> > || check_funcs(file, size, pec)
> > @@ -243,7 +294,7 @@
> > exit(1);
> >
> > if (!yes && !confirm(filename, address, size, daddress,
> > - value, vmask, pec))
> > + value, vmask, block, len, pec))
> > exit(0);
> >
> > if (vmask) {
> > @@ -299,11 +350,18 @@
> > case I2C_SMBUS_WORD_DATA:
> > res = i2c_smbus_write_word_data(file, daddress, value);
> > break;
> > + case I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA:
> > + res = i2c_smbus_write_block_data(file, daddress, len, block);
> > + break;
> > + case I2C_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK_DATA:
> > + res = i2c_smbus_write_i2c_block_data(file, daddress, len,
> > block);
> > + break;
> > default: /* I2C_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA */
> > res = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(file, daddress, value);
> > + break;
> > }
> > if (res < 0) {
> > - fprintf(stderr, "Error: Write failed\n");
> > + perror("Error: Write failed");
>
> Hmm, do i2c_smbus_()* calls actually set errno? I didn't expect them
> to. Either way, if this change is wanted, it doesn't belong to this
> patch.
>
Yes, they do. But you are right, this change doesn't belong into this patch.
Leftover from testing anyway, so I removed it.
> > close(file);
> > exit(1);
> > }
>
> I tested your patch for the I2C block write case, it worked OK.
>
> Please also update the manual page.
>
Ok, will do.
Thanks,
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
