Testing is admittedly more difficult in 2.5 without a working 'sensors' and libsensors, but catting the sysfs files and verifying the values look good, maybe changing some limits, is a good start. I'll let Greg answer the 2.5 question. Martin Schlemmer wrote: > 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, >>>
