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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html