> > Why not. The first step IMHO would be to have a separated prefix for > > the asb100. It is currently handled as an as99127f. Then we could > > see what can be done to support the asb100 better. > > The total of our support for ASB100 right now is to pretend that it's > an as99127f. If we're going to do more than that, my vote is to put > it into a different file altogether. Rationale... Agreed. And as99127f support could even go into the new driver. > > One of our users, Bryan Almeda, already made some work in this > > direction. His work is avilable there: > > http://tynian.net/asb100/ > > Please test his patch and tell us how it works for you. > > .. it breaks as99127f, as he mentioned. Also, w83781d doesn't really > want to support yet another unique sensor chip. > > (BTW, I haven't looked at the patch yet.) I never intended to apply the patch to our sources. I just wanted to know how it was working on the ASB100. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
