This looks to me like a lm75-compatible or adm1021-compatible chip; the address range 48-4f is traditionally for temperature sensors; it wouldn't be that unusual for a board with a w83627hf (with 3 temp sensors) to have another chip to provide additional temperatures. I agree w/ Khali that you can watch the registers with i2cdump (esp. at data address 0x00) to see if it varies with CPU load, if so try loading lm75. The first 4 locations look somewhat like temp, control, hyst, and max to me.... then again, maybe not. I see the lm75 section in sensors-detect has grown a lot, I don't pretend to understand it all but perhaps there is a new case here or perhaps it is too restrictive? Our first guess for a chip in the range 48-4f should always be lm75 or compatible. Eric perhaps you can look at your board and find out what chip this is, that would be a big help to us. mds Eric wrote: > Well, I should have seen it, so consider me a stoopid as well :-) > > root at pathfinder eric # i2cdump 0 0x4e > No size specified (using byte-data access) > WARNING! This program can confuse your I2C bus, cause data loss and worse! > I will probe file /dev/i2c-0, address 0x4e, mode byte > You have five seconds to reconsider and press CTRL-C! > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 0123456789abcdef > 00: 6d 2d 10 72 00 80 0f 00 00 00 ff 00 00 00 e0 ff m-?r.??.......?. > 10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 20: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 30: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 40: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 60: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > c0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > d0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > f0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ > > Jean Delvare wrote: > >> Quoting Eric <plukje at gmx.net>: >> >> >>> About the version I used, I couldn't find a version number in >>> sensors-detect >>> >> >> We don't include any version in it because it would be a real pain to >> update it with each new release. >> >> >>> but I'm fairly sure this is 2.8.5 (from sensors --version) or >>> better. >>> >> >> So you did the right thing, this was the right way to get the >> information :) >> >> >>> root at pathfinder eric # i2cdump 0 0x2e >>> >> >> OK, I am too stupid. This was "i2cdump 0 0x4e", since the mysterious >> chip is as 0x04e. >> >> > >
