On 12-04-05 03:24 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Douglas,
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:54:20 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Sorry about the delay in responding. The patch didn't work
in the case of the Sonmicro SM130 RFID but I could see it was close.
The correct response (for the SM130) when reading the firmware
version is this 10 byte response:
08 81 49 32 43 20 32 2e 38 ff ["I2C 2.8"]
so the count in the first byte excludes itself and the checksum
trailing byte. With the I2C_M_RECV_LEN patch I see this response:
08 81 49 32 43 20 32 2e 00 00
so the count (leading) byte includes itself and makes no
provision for a checksum. [So 8 bytes are returned and the two
trailing zeros are just buffer pre-fill.]
What value did you set msg->buf[0] to before calling? You were supposed
to set it to 2 in your case, exactly because the driver can't guess how
many extra bytes the chip will return, that aren't included in the byte
count. Your results suggest that you let msg->buf[0] to 0.
I've improved my patch to properly reject the transaction if buf[0] is
not set properly. Please test and report.
You might argue that the I2C_M_RECV_LEN patch is sensible
and the SM130 is strange. My solution is to read 32 bytes
which is more than I ever expect.
The SM130 is a bit strange but it should be supportable.
* * * * *
As the bus driver side implementation of I2C_M_RECV_LEN is heavily
tied to SMBus, we can't support received length over 32 bytes, but
let's at least support that.
In practice, the caller will have to setup a buffer large enough to
cover the case where received length byte has value 32, so minimum
32 + 1 = 33 bytes, possibly more if there is a fixed number of bytes
added for the specific slave (for example a checksum.)
Jean,
Either I am misunderstanding how to use this new patch or it is
broken. After replacing the original patch with this one, setting
msg->buf[0] to 2, my test program only sees the first two bytes
of expected data:
08 81
That is down from 8 bytes from the previous patch and 10 bytes
expected from the SM130.
Doug Gilbert
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare<khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Douglas Gilbert<dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- linux-3.4-rc1.orig/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c 2012-04-02 17:16:53.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-3.4-rc1/drivers/i2c/i2c-dev.c 2012-04-05 09:12:26.385033151 +0200
@@ -265,19 +265,41 @@ static noinline int i2cdev_ioctl_rdrw(st
res = 0;
for (i = 0; i< rdwr_arg.nmsgs; i++) {
- /* Limit the size of the message to a sane amount;
- * and don't let length change either. */
- if ((rdwr_pa[i].len> 8192) ||
- (rdwr_pa[i].flags& I2C_M_RECV_LEN)) {
+ /* Limit the size of the message to a sane amount */
+ if (rdwr_pa[i].len> 8192) {
res = -EINVAL;
break;
}
+
data_ptrs[i] = (u8 __user *)rdwr_pa[i].buf;
rdwr_pa[i].buf = memdup_user(data_ptrs[i], rdwr_pa[i].len);
if (IS_ERR(rdwr_pa[i].buf)) {
res = PTR_ERR(rdwr_pa[i].buf);
break;
}
+
+ /*
+ * If the message length is received from the slave (similar
+ * to SMBus block read), we must ensure that the buffer will
+ * be large enough to cope with a message length of
+ * I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX as this is the maximum underlying bus
+ * drivers allow. The first byte in the buffer must be
+ * pre-filled with the number of extra bytes, which must be
+ * at least one to hold the message length, but can be
+ * greater (for example to account for a checksum byte at
+ * the end of the message.)
+ */
+ if (rdwr_pa[i].flags& I2C_M_RECV_LEN) {
+ if (!(rdwr_pa[i].flags& I2C_M_RD) ||
+ rdwr_pa[i].buf[0]< 1 ||
+ rdwr_pa[i].len< rdwr_pa[i].buf[0] +
+ I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_MAX) {
+ res = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ rdwr_pa[i].len = rdwr_pa[i].buf[0];
+ }
}
if (res< 0) {
int j;
--
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
