> Nice. I tested this against Bach just now. Timely too, since I'm > doing an independent driver for that chip. Anyone have a preference > for the name? If not it will be "bach.c". I would have chosen asb100, but well it's you writing the driver ;) And the name ain't really important (unless you choose something as explicit as "bt6dz1kb" of course) so do just as you want. > > Similar changes should be made to the w83781d driver itself, but I > > would like my changes to be tested before that. My tests were > > successful on three chips I own (AS99127F rev.1, W83781D and > > W83782D) but more tests would be welcome. > > Seems to work on Bach. Will you do a patch for 2.6? Otherwise I can. I will do the changes on our driver tomorrow, test, commit, let you test, and then submit a patch for 2.6. > AFAIK, Bach is I2C only. Mine reads 0 from 0x48. And is at I2C address 0x2d I suppose? Anyway, unless we are sure these chips have no address selection pins, we can't conclude. However, I expect them to be pin-to-pin compatible with their Winbond counterparts, and as such are unlikely to have address selection pins. We have three possibilities: 1* Leave everything unchanged. 2* Limit AS199237F and ASB100 to addres 0x2d. 3* Leave the whole 0x28-0x2f range possible but give the chips a lower confidence if address isn't 0x2d. I'm in favor of solution 3. -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
