Hi Ben, > I've done some quick tests, and the tmp101 seems to be > fine with the lm75 driver, using the following cmdline: > > "lm75.force_lm75=-1,0x48" I didn't know that syntax, I guess this comes from the "new" module_param stuff? Good thing to know, thanks for pointing out. Anyway, this at least proves that the TMP101 is LM75-compatible as Mark and I thought. > Is there any way to pass the `kind` parameter of the > probe call via this method? This is exactly what you did. The force_lm75 parameter sets the "kind" to lm75. force (without _lm75) would set the "kind" to 0 insead - which currently makes no difference for the lm75 driver. > Attached is a patch to add resolution to the sysfs, which > read-only if we detect an lm75, and r/w if it is forced. I doubt it really does that. Quoting your code: > +static DEVICE_ATTR(resolution, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, > + lm75_show_resolution, lm75_set_resolution); > (...) > if (kind <= 0) > kind = lm75; > + else if (kind != lm75) > + dev_attr_resolution.attr.mode |= S_IWUSR; So in the first place the file is r/w, then you conditionally add the write permission - without any effect, needless to say. Also note that this last line is actually never run - the first test copes with kind == -1 and kind == 0, and the only case left (kind == lm75) is explicitely excluded by the second test. In short, that part of your patch is severly broken ;) > I could add a small bit of code to probe the presence of > the resolution bits if the probe is forced. I don't get what you mean here, but since your patch didn't seem to really reflect what you had in mind, it's not all that surprising. Your patch is broken in several other respects, namely: 1* It creates the resolution file for any LM75-compatible chip, while most don't support resolution change. It will be fine (providing the file is read-only) for the LM75 itself because theses configuration bits are 0, so the resolution will properly be displayed as 9. However, I think that some compatible chips - there is a long list - may use these bits for something different. Did you check? 2* You do not make any use of the additional resolution bits. The current lm75 code will strip them. So what's the point? I do not think that the benefit of the additional resolution is worth the effort. The TMP101 part is given with a 2 degrees accuracy, so a resolution of 0.5 degree seems to be just fine. I doubt we really need anything more precise than that in computer equipement. (When we have additional resolution at no cost, I'm all for it, but in this special case the cost exists and seems a bit high to me.) What might be more useful to work on would be a TMP101 detection algorithm so that the chip is properly detected without the need of a force parameter. I can help you achieve that if you provide the output of i2cdump (in word mode) for your chip. The command would be "i2cdump <n> 0x48 w" where <n> is the number of the i2c bus the chip sits on. i2cdetect can help you find which bus number it is. You'll need to load i2c-dev before running both commands. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
