I see. fixed, sorry. mds Jean Delvare wrote: >>unless I'm missing something, there are no more accesses to the bus >>at that address in scan_adapter() after the detection function >>returns, so it isn't necessary. > > > Wrong. There can be more than one possible chip at a given address. For > example we detect the MAX6900 at 0x50 after the EEPROMs. After your > change, I suspect that we actually detect it at 0x30 (where it cannot > be) instead. > > Even without that, I think we should never rely on the order of the > entries in @chips_id, nor on the fact that some addresses are used by a > limited number of chips. These are thing that can change quickly and > nobody will remember that part of the detection code depended on a > condition that isn't true anymore. >
