On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 05:46:19PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Ben, hi Mark, > > > > isn't this chip compatible with the LM75 and its driver? > > > what's different about it if anything? > > > > configuration register is different, the temperature > > comparison is also different (tmp101 has low/high range) > > Configuration is extended but compatible. Your driver doesn't seem to > make use of the extra configuration bits (only raises OS/ALERT, which is > already set by default). The driver also has resolution control. > I also see no difference in the comparison mechanism. Tlow and Thigh are > misnomers, if you look at the output transfer functions diagrams (page 6 > of the datasheet) you see that it really is a high limit with an > hysteresis, just like the LM75 has. > > I agree with Mark, your driver is essentially redundant with the lm75 > driver. I invite you to test the lm75 driver on your device. You might > need to use the force parameter (the detection method is quite tricky) > but otherwise I'd expect it to work just fine. If it does, we might > simply need to tweak the detection function (once more) to recognize the > TMP101. I'll try and check it > See this thread for a previous discussion on this same topic: > http://archives.andrew.net.au/lm-sensors/msg26681.html > > (Side question, where do you have such a chip? Seems to be quite rarely > used.) All new boards by Simtec Electronics... the EB2410ITX and at least one custom board for a client. -- Ben (ben at fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/) 'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
