P1394 Mail Archive: RE: P1394> Comments on P1394.3 Correctio

P1394 Mail Archive: RE: P1394> Comments on P1394.3 Correctio

RE: P1394> Comments on P1394.3 Corrections

From: BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1) (alan_berkema@hp.com)
Date: Wed May 10 2000 - 12:45:40 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Johansson: "P1394> PPDT_r11: Minor corrections?"

    I aggree with Shimura-san, I got the page numbers mixed up in
    my notes and did not double check them.
    As for the csr_offset vs mar_offset name I think mar is more
    descriptive though it may not be worth an editorial change.
    Alan

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Akihiro Shimura [mailto:shimura@pure.cpdc.canon.co.jp]
    Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 3:06 AM
    To: p1394@pwg.org
    Subject: Re: P1394> Comments on P1394.3 Corrections

    Hello, Alan and others,

    > > 1) Page 63: Text descriptor leaf offset (3).
    > > 2) Page 65: Text descriptor offset (2).

    Though I may be misunderstanding Alan's point, I think these two
    values in the P1394.3 Draft 1.1 are consistent with P1212 definition.

      Quote from page 32 of the P1212 Draft 1.0
        <<For directory entries that specify a relative offset within
          configuration ROM, the directory or leaf address within units
          space shall be calculated by adding 4 * value to the address
          of the entry itself.>>

    By above definition, I guess,
      Page 66: "keyword leaf offset(2)" in Figure F-4 should be "(3)"
      Page 69: "keyword leaf offset(5)" in Figure F-7 should be "(6)"
      Page 67: better to denote "keyword leaf offset" with "(4)".

    > > 3) Page Various: csr_offset

    I think the "csr_offset"(in page 65 and 66) is explaining that the
    "type" field of this entry (most significant two bits) is "1"(CSR
    offset) and the "value" field is specifying the offset "relative to
    FFFF F000 0000(16)". I see no problem with current description in
    the P1394.3.

    Akihiro Shimura

    On Fri, 5 May 2000 10:33:17 -0700
    gleclair@agentz.com wrote:

    >
    > Not having seen any reflector traffic, I must ask the question,
    > are there any comments on the issues raised in the
    > following email?
    >
    > Please reply to the reflector if you agree or disagree with the
    > issues raised within two weeks. At that time the editor will update
    > the latest working draft of P1394.3 to agree with the
    > working group consensus.
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    > Greg LeClair
    > Chair P1394.3 WG
    > greg@erc.epson.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: p1394-owner@pwg.org [mailto:p1394-owner@pwg.org]On Behalf Of
    > > BERKEMA,ALAN C (HP-Roseville,ex1)
    > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:31 PM
    > > To: '1394 PWG'
    > > Subject: P1394> p1394.3 minor corrections?
    > >
    > >
    > > 13 April 2000
    > >
    > > 1394 PWG,
    > >
    > > A few of us were looking at p1394.3 and believe we noticed a
    > > couple of minor
    > > errors?
    > >
    > > 1) Page 63: Text descriptor leaf offset (3).
    > > * Believe that this offset should be 2 instead of 3.
    > >
    > > 2) Page 65: Text descriptor offset (2).
    > > * Believe that this offset should be 1 instead of 2
    > >
    > > 3) Page Various: csr_offset
    > > * Believe that this should be mar_offset for the SBP-2 Management Agent
    > > Register.
    > >
    > > Please review this and reply if you agree or disagree.
    > > If this warrants a minor edit I would hope we could agree
    > > via e-mail instead of holding a meeting.
    > >
    > > Greg,
    > > Thanks for getting us to ballot.
    > >
    > > Alan
    > >
    > >
    >

    --
     Akihiro Shimura (shimura@pure.cpdc.canon.co.jp)
     Office Imaging Products Development Center 3
     CANON INC.
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 10 2000 - 12:52:14 EDT