We pretend to support the LM77 for years, using our lm75 driver. This isn't the absolute truth. The address range is shorter, the configuration register isn't exactly compatible, and the LM77 has two more registers. A LM77 would never be detected by our detection routine. (We use the fact that the LM75's registers cycle over 4-byte (well, sort of [1]) boundaries, which of course won't work with the LM77 since it as 6 registers.) And the lm75 module does the same check on load so it wouldn't load for a LM77 without the force parameter. Suggestions: 1* Add a different detection routine for the LM77 to sensors-detect. I think we can assume that the registers cycle over 8-byte [1] boundaries. Since cycling over 4-byte boundaries implies cycling over 8-byte boundaries, we would have to give it a lower confidence value than the LM75. 2* Update the docs to explain the force parameter has to be used. 3* Really support the LM77. Not sure anyone is using that chip, so maybe we don't have to do this part. Comments? [1] Some registers are actually words, not bytes, but that's not the point here. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
