>> In the w83l785ts driver I do return the last know value for that >> register, passed as an additional parameter by the caller. It doesn't >> help for the first read, of course, and tends to hide errors, but is >> IMHO better than arbitrarily returning 0. > >I see what you did. I'm not a C coder, so I'm not sure I can pull it >off. I will see what I can do. My method needs more changes to the code since it alters the function prototype. If you don't feel a need for it in your case, let's not change anything. >> There's something strange in your patch, methinks. You issue warnings on >> read errors, but you don't actually issue an error message if you are >> not able to recover from the successive errors. You may provide a patch >> against CVS that fixes that and I'll apply it. > >Yeah, I thought of that after I sent the patch off. The patch I have >been using logs when the maximum number of retries has been exhausted. >I held back from sending a patch to my patch until I got some feedback :^) And does it actually happen? The delay between retries may be experimented with. I came with a very simple model but other approaches could lead to better results in some cases. Feel free to alter the delays and see if it helps. >> You'll see I have commited my own changes to the lm87 driver too. They >> mostly fix brokenesses in macros, which make the driver handle negative >> temperatures correctly, and, more interestingly, make it round voltages >> properly. > >Sounds like good stuff. I hadn't noticed any problems, but that doesn't >mean they weren't there. The negative temperature problem was obviously not important, I wonder who needs this. The voltage rounding issues were rather clean though. If you set limits in /etc/sensors.conf, "sensors -s && sensors" would yield different values, off by a few mV each time. For example, my VCore limits are 1.7V +/- 5%. They were reading (IIRC) 1.56V-1.77V, and after the fixes read 1.60V-1.79V, which is nearer from what I asked for. >Yes, I have the same case. We have two products that use the LM87 (and >another on the way). One uses one configuration, and the other uses the >second configuration. At this time, I have a total hack in the spec >file that makes a copy of the lm87.c file, patches it for the additional >temperature input and adds and entry to the make file to build it when >the rest of the modules are built. Ugly, but since I don't code in C >(yet), doing this was something well within my skills (and it does work >fine, as long as you remember to load the right driver version). I suspect that you can simply set CFLAGS to -DLM87_EXT2 to alter the output. It might be easier than to copy/patch the file. >I haven't tried this, so I really don't know. I expect it be correct on >one board. The second board is still in development and has more BIOS >bugs than you can count, so I'm pretty sure setting up the sensor chips >isn't done correctly yet. Do you suggest that you have a new product using LM87 chips? I thought these chips were pretty old and not used for new designs anymore. Thanks, Jean Delvare
