> > I took a look, it used to detect an adm1021 clone for all three > > addresses (0x18, 0x4c and 0x4e). After my first fix, 0x18 is left > > apart(great), 0x4c is detected but the lm90 driver if prefered > > (great too) and 0x4e is still detected (*not* great). I added one > > extra check in sensors detect for the MAX1617 and the LM84 (and also > > for the LM75), which should fix the problem. Could you check it out > > and give it a try? Would be nice. > > File is attached... Great, no more MAX1617 claimed at 0x4e. Still sensors-detect claims to have found a LM75 at this address, which should *not* happen after my latest changes. Very strange... Could you provide the output of the following command, it may help: i2cdump 0 0x4e w Notice the "w" for "word mode". This mode is used while detecting LM75, maybe the unknown chip you have at 0x4e doesn't answer to this mode as expected. > > BTW, I'd be interested in a dump of devices 0x18 and 0x4e. You > > already sent them once, but they obviously changed (the one at 0x4e > > at least, or it couldn't be detected as a LM84 - and it is). > > File is attached. I don't know why 4e changed either. I suspect that this chip has only one readable register, so it doesn't care about the address and always return the value of that register. That said, I don't know why this value used to be 0x14 and is now 0x00, but it's probably a bit vector and not a plain value (well, just guessing.) > and I got similar data from the MAX1617. see file > sensors-output-20031012.txt for the history. > About the only difference I can see is that the lm90 driver returns a > temp with a decimal number and the MAX1617 returns a whole number. That's what was expected. > ANYWAY, Jean. Sorry to have taken up so much of your time -- > especially since it appears it was my error in the first place (not > adding 0,0x4e in the original modules.conf file. > > However, I learned alot from the experience and have become quite > comfortable working with lmsensors. Everyone took benefit I guess. You learned about lm_sensors, we improved our detection routines, making our product slightly better. That's the way we like it :) -- Jean Delvare http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
