On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 03:50, Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > If your patch is all that's required and it tests out well (have you tested it?) > then sure, why not. It assumes that a w83627thf is exactly the same > as a w83627hf. It's when the additional patches come in > (if kind == w83627thf.....) then it's making a bad situation worse in > my opinion. > It is the same chip, except for fan control,etc, which I think is more just for bios/board control, but not having (or being able to get) a data sheet, I cannot verify. > So my preference is to limit the additions to w83781d. > > There's no plans to split the existing w83781d driver. > We don't rename existing drivers because of CVS limitations and > wanting to minimize changes for our users. > Right, but what about 2.5 side ? Will patches to do this in 2.5 be considered ? > So I'd feel better about your patch after seeing some test results. > And as I said before, you will get the best results by using > the new 627hf driver, either after porting it yourself or > hoping somebody else does. > I will try to make the time, but not in the next week or so. What kind of tests do you need ? > mds > > > Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 03:06, Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > > > >>About a week ago I worked with > >> Matthias Hentges <matthias at hentges.net> > >>to determine the device ID for this chip, and he supplied a patch which > >>I worked into CVS, into the w83627hf driver and into sensors-detect. > >>It was checked in last week. > >> > >>This driver is designed for Super I/O chips and includes detection > >>and activation. It uses ISA accesses. > >> > > > > > > Ok, checked out CVS. > > > > > >>I would rather not keep adding to the w83781d cruft, especially > >>for Super I/O chips. Not only is the > >>driver quite unwieldy already, but people have had lots of trouble > >>with the Winbond Super I/O chips because they often aren't > >>initialzed by the bios so the w83781d driver can't find them. > >>ISA accesses are also much more reliable. > >> > >>Please test the w83627hf driver in CVS and give us some feedback. > >> > > > > > > Well, it is not yet ported to 2.5, and the state this box is > > in (NPTL, etc), I _cannot_ use a 2.4 kernel. I also do not know > > if I currently have the time to port it to 2.5. > > > > Finally, what is the plan .. split the w83781d into smaller > > drivers for each class of chip ? If so, don't you still > > need i2c support for some w836* chips? Won't then also > > be better to call the drivers w837xx.c and w836xx.c ? > > > > > > Regards, > > -- Martin Schlemmer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20030617/5f75b72c/attachment.bin
