> > One additional note. In sensors-detect we scan all addresses from > > 0x00 to 0x7F. I don't think it's correct. According to what I know, > > 0x00, 0x02-0x03, 0x0C and 0x7C-0x7F should not be scanned, being > > respectively the general call address, a reserved range, the alert > > response address and another reserved range. I propose to exclude > > these addresses from the scan. Then, all we need to do is add four > > addresses to the exclusion list if an IBM system is detected. This > > also opens a path for more addresses exclusions if this is needed > > later. > > agreed. this used to be on my to-do list. > i2c-core scans all addressess too which is even worse > than having userspace do it. Does i2c-core scan anything? I thought the chip drivers were (and not all addresses of course, only those specified in the driver). > Actually it's not that bad to scan all the adresses, > it's just bad to probe them all with each of the driver tests. What distinction do you make here between scan and probe? Not sure I get you. > the worst one is 0x00. The others shouldn't really be a problem, I > don't think. Agreed, but I don't see the point in scanning addresses that cannot be used by valid chips. My fear with 0x00 is that, if it really works as a broadcast address, a quick write on it could reach a 24RF08 chip, and break it (since the workaround is only enabled on addresses 0x54-0x57). -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
