Ben Dooks wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:06:12PM -0500, Mark Studebaker wrote: > >>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). >> >>I'm going to fix the lm75 driver to only rewrite the CMP/INT bit, >>and only if it's set to INT, OK? >>This will be kinder to compatible chips. > > > Would it be possible to have an option to add converter resolution > control at the same time please? > > If the data-sheet had said it was an lm75 compatible, it'd have saved > me a bit of time. gah. > yes we'd consider a patch to add a resolution parameter (res=12?) we'd have to review the other chip datasheets (see list in doc/chips/lm75) to see if they also support selectable resolution, you may need a second parameter (or perhaps force_tmp101) to cause the driver to write the new resolution... if you're writing chip drivers, it's good to check doc/chips/SUMMARY to see if there is a similar chip before you start a new driver from scratch... once you let us know the lm75 driver works, we'll update our docs to reflect support for the tmp100/101. mds
