On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:30:56PM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > On 06/24/2016 11:46 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:02:51AM -0500, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > >> On 06/18/2016 10:16 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> > >>> The chip registers are 16 bit. Can you repeat the command using the "w" > >>> option ? > >>> > >> > >> # i2cdump -y 2 0x40 w > >> 0,8 1,9 2,a 3,b 4,c 5,d 6,e 7,f > >> 00: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> 08: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> 10: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> 18: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> 20: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> 28: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> 30: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> 38: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> 40: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> 48: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> 50: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> 58: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> 60: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> 68: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> 70: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> 78: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> 80: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> 88: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> 90: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> 98: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> a0: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> a8: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> b0: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> b8: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> c0: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> c8: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> d0: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> d8: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > >> e0: 2771 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 f87f > >> e8: f87f f87f f87f f87f f87f 0000 fe7f 0300 > >> f0: 1027 2823 ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff ffff > >> f8: ffff ffff XXXX f8f8 ffff ffff 4954 2032 > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > Feel free to completely ignore the first register dump I sent, I did it > for the wrong device anyway :). > > I had just gotten done reading this: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/10/459 > and accidentally got EVMs confused did the test for the TMP461, but it > does look like on startup register 0x16 can be used to differentiate the > parts, if the TMP461 hadn't gone into a different driver. > Good catch. That makes me wonder if we should move tmp461 support to the lm90 driver. What do you think ? Problem is that tmp461 will be auto-detected as tmp451 by the lm90 driver, which is less than perfect. My test script for ina3221 only accepts a single value - 16380 - for the limit registers. Seems odd. I'll have to look into it some more. Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
