On 5/30/24 14:02, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
On 2024-05-30 13:46:48+0000, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 5/30/24 13:20, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
On 2024-05-29 13:52:03+0000, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Add support for SPD5118 (Jedec JESD300-5B.01) compliant temperature
sensors. Such sensors are typically found on DDR5 memory modules.
I can get the module to automatically probe with this change:
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-smbus.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-smbus.c
index 97f338b123b1..8d9218f755d7 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-smbus.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-smbus.c
@@ -382,6 +386,10 @@ void i2c_register_spd(struct i2c_adapter *adap)
case 0x1E: /* LPDDR4 */
name = "ee1004";
break;
+ case 0x22: /* DDR5 */
+ case 0x23: /* LPDDR5 */
+ name = "spd5118";
+ break;
default:
dev_info(&adap->dev,
"Memory type 0x%02x not supported yet, not instantiating SPD\n",
(Credits go to Paul Menzel [0])
Maybe you can add that to your series.
That is specifically for SPD (eeprom) support, which I didn't provide
in the driver. It does not register the equivalent jc42.4 temperature
sensor either. Given that, using the code to register a temperature
sensor seems inappropriate.
I see, I wasn't aware about the specifics of SPD.
It felt like a nice way to get automatic probing.
(I was wondering about that today before)
I didn't include accessing the SPD eeprom to the driver because I don't
have a use case. I don't mind adding it, though, if others think that it is
important.
Wolfgang seems to think it's important:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/tdia472d4pow2osabef24y2ujkkquplfajxmmtk5pnxllsdxsz@wxzynz7llasr/
Ok, but that doesn't explain the reason. Wolfram, Paul, why do you
think this is needed ? Note that I am not opposed to adding spd
eeprom support, but I'd like to know why I am doing it before
I spend time on it.
Auto detection would be nice, though, because with that we could
drop support for the _detect function (which is kind of risky
on the i2c address range normally used for eeproms).
Thanks,
Guenter
