Mark, I see that you are using the DID's directly, for ICH5,6,7, rather then using the pci_ids.h defines. Is this your preference or would you rather use the pci_ids.h names? I am wondering if I should also just use the actual DID's for the 2.6 patch? Thanks, Jason Gaston -----Original Message----- From: Mark Studebaker [mailto:mds4 at verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:01 PM To: Gaston, Jason D Cc: LM Sensors Subject: Re: RFC: complete rewrite of i2c-i801 for 2.6.x since I'm in the middle of 801 driver updates already, I'll go ahead and add support to the driver and sensors-detect in CVS. I'll leave the 2.6 patch to you. let us know when you have test results. thanks mds Gaston, Jason D wrote: > Mark, > > I don't think that there are any changes to the ICH7 SMBus Controller, > other then DID, which is 27DAh. The Datasheet will not be available > until the product launches. I will however, patch the driver with the > new DID, test it out and then submit the patch here and to the LKML. My > plan is to do this within the next six weeks or so. Unless you can or > want to add the DID now? > > Let me know if you would still like me to try something out on ICH5, > ICH6 or ESB6300. > > Thanks, > > Jason Gaston > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Studebaker [mailto:mds4 at verizon.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:37 AM > To: Gaston, Jason D > Cc: LM Sensors > Subject: Re: RFC: complete rewrite of i2c-i801 for 2.6.x > > thanks for offer. i2c block read support for ich5 and later is now in > CVS. > Best way to test bus drivers is with 'i2cdump'. > In particular to test i2c block reads, best way is with the "i" mode of > i2cdump. > If it works, regular byte ("b") mode and "i" mode should have identical > results > when reading from an eeprom. > > For the ICH7, first we've heard of it, but not surprised it would be the > chip > after ICH6 :) > I see there's nothing on developer.intel.com about it. Will there be any > changes in the SMBus controller? What is the device ID? Datasheet > availability? > Whether you submit 2.4 or 2.6 patches doesn't really matter. > But with the device ID, and assurances that the SMBus part of the chip > didn't change, > it's real easy. > > mds > > > Gaston, Jason D wrote: > >>Mark, >> >>I would be willing to do some testing of the i2c-i801 driver on ICH5, >>ICH6, ESB6300 and ICH7. I have access to boards/systems, but I am not >>proficient in i2c testing, other then running "sensors" and seeing the >>data. If you know of some instructions for the testing you are > > looking > >>for, I am willing to give it a go. >> >>In addition, I will soon want to get support for ICH7 added to the >>i2c-i801 driver. Last time, when I wanted to get support for ICH6 >>added, I posted a patch, adding the DID's, to the LKML and Greg KH. >>This made it into the 2.6 kernel. Perhaps I should get support added >>here first and then the base kernel? >> >>Let me know how I can help, >> >>Jason Gaston >>Jason.d.gaston at intel.com >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Mark Studebaker [mailto:mds4 at verizon.net] >>Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 7:02 PM >>To: Sensors >>Subject: Re: RFC: complete rewrite of i2c-i801 for 2.6.x >> >> >> >>Mark M. Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Mark: >>> >>>(CCs trimmed) >>> >>>* Mark D. Studebaker <mds4 at verizon.net> [2004-12-07 11:20:54 -0500]: >>> >>> >>> >>>>My reading of the DB datasheet (in 2002 and now) is that it doesn't >> >>support a >> >> >>>>standard i2c block read. The driver functionality bitmask reflects >> >>that. >> >> >>>>I fixed the error message (which would only print out if a driver >> >>ignored >> >> >>>>the functionality mask). >>> >>> >>>Interesting. It looks like that datasheet only shows this: >>> >>> S Addr Wr [A] Comm [A] D0 [A] D1 [A] S (read bytes...) >>> >>>I agree that's not like any transaction we support. >> >> >>correct. don't know what they were thinking. >> >> >> >>>OTOH, the ICH5 [1] datasheet shows this: >>> >>> S Addr Wr [A] D1 [A] S (read bytes...) >>> >>>That's exactly the transfer protocol that eeproms need, right? >> >>(That's why I >> >> >>>mentioned to Khali by IRC last weekend that I thought it should be >> >>possible.) >> >> >>I think it is what eeproms need (you omitted 'Addr' after the second >>'S'). >>It matches what I wrote in doc/smbus-protocol in i2c >>(that is, the i2c block functions are defined to take a 'command' > > byte, > >>matching >> what eeproms need for 'random' reads and writes). >> >>Does anybody have a ICH5/6? If so I can add support to the driver for >>testing. >> >>mds >> >> >> >> >>>It would be really bizarre if these two chipsets behaved differently >> >>in this >> >> >>>respect - I wonder if the datasheets are correct? >>> >>>[1] Well I just scanned all the other datasheets... only ICH5, ICH6, >> >>and >> >> >>>6300ESB appear to support the standard I2C block read. Sorry Khali. >> >>:) >> >> >>>Regards, >>> >> >> >> > >
