> > 0x58 would be an I2C address, not an I/O address. Also, as I said in > > an earlier post, this would certainly be 0x58 >> 1, i.e. 0x44. > > 0x58 >> 1 == 44 == 0x2c, not 0x44 Aha my god what a morron I am :( I *knew* there were something odd in my computation but couldn't find out what. I better learn how to use "bc" properly now... Thanks for correcting me. 0x2c indeed sounds much better as I believe it *is* the address of the W83792D chip. -- Jean Delvare
