> The way it is written in the spec (1111 0XX) probably caused people to > confuse it for 0xF0-0xF3 which I found in some messages on the mailing > list. Yes, it always causes confusion if the R/W bit is part of the address or not. > But that still leaves the question of where the 0xA... in the kernel docs > came from. less Documentation/i2c/ten-bit-addresses > Section 3.1.12 ends with some musings about the assignment of addresses in > "local systems". More specifically, it ends with the sentence "If it is known > that the reserved address is never going to be used for its intended purpose, > a reserved address can be used for a slave address." > > I _do_ know that there are no 10 bit addressed slaves in my application, so > the spec allows me to use at those 4 slave address. Apparently it is not my > device that is broken. For your specific case, I agree. For the generic case, I don't. Maybe the word "broken" is too much, though, how about calling it "risky"? That being said, as I mentioned before, I think patches adding support for using "risky" addresses in i2c-tools are acceptable, so no show-stopper here. Can you share which device uses the address 0x78? I'd like to add it to my list of "interesting I2C devices".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
