Jim Cromie wrote: > if you can build a kernel, and can apply a patch, > then you can get the ones ready for 2.6.16 here. > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/i2c/linux-2.6/ > > ...... > > the series file in there lists the patches in the order you need to > apply them. > to a 2.6.15 tree > Theyre slated for inclusion in 16, and some of them are *thf patches. > You *could* try just the *thf patches, you should know by compiling > whether you need others. > > theres also 2 tars, might save you some hassle. That's what I'm seeking. Thanks. > BTW - youd do well to drop the *misfortunate* posture. > I cant speak for that chip, but Winbond is supporting their product, > one or more of them is on-list here, and they appear to > play-nice-with-others. a) If you are unfamiliar with the story behind that chip, as conveyed from the information found on the drivers page, then you have completely missed the context of my use of misfortune "posturing". If you review those sources you will find that it is stated as being a "rare chip, not listed on Winbond's site, we have no datasheet for it, this explains why we don't support it". Of course the second thread continues to reveal how experimental patches were developed. However, those patches are now quite dated in terms of kernels to which they are to be applied. There is no indication of any further change on the situation -- either on the driver page or in the changes file. As an end-user trying to determine the status of the w83687thf (and one who spent some time poking around lm_sensors website and google), I was disappointed to find no further developments. Assimilating that information with the fact that I (unsuccessfully) tried applying the existing, but dated, patches on my own prior to bugging anyone on the list about it, I have no problem standing by my earlier statement that "I have the misfortune of having the Winbond W83687THF Super I/O IC on my Soltek motherboard (SL-B9D-FGR)". Is that context clear enough? b) You appear to have made the faulty assumption that my usage of "misfortune" was a slight against Winbond. It was not, and should in no way be construed as such. c) As an end-user not intimately involved in the lm_sensors project, I was unaware that Winbond is actively supporting their product(s). From my observations (as outlined in point (a)), the w83687thf remains unsupported. Indeed, there remains only a brief press release about this chip on Winbond's website. You could probably find the pdf from their downloads section, but I, nor likely you or anyone else, has the time to play guess the magic xxxx number (http://www.winbond.com/c-winbondhtm/partner/PDFresult.asp?Pname=xxxx). d) Lastly, despite the fact that your advice was mis-directed, it remains a bit perplexing to me -- Is the relationship between lm_sensors and Winbond so tenuous that end users must avoid writing anything that might appear in a negative light about the vendor? Is Winbond going to get offended by the slightest knock, pick up their ball and go home? Personally, if I have anything deservingly negative to say about a company, don't count on me tip-toeing around the issue or holding back on the matter. However, in this case, I reiterate that dissatisfaction with Winbond was never a point of issue in my posting to the list. > > Remember what used to happen to the sissys and whiners on the school > playground ? We may be more grown up now, but human nature is what > it is. > At first I wasn't sure if it was directed at me, as it makes no sense (other then perhaps being a follow on to your "posturing" commentary). I considered that perhaps it was a signature included in all of your posts. Yet, glancing at a few of your prior posts on the list quickly extinguished that notion and reaffirmed that it was indeed directed at me. My reply is this: While I thank you for the useful information you provided early in your reply, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. As I have already addressed in detail your prior misdirected commentary, I will only add that this last comment bears little value to any conversation. It strikes me that you have become too deeply involved with the project. Take a step back and try to envision where uninvolved end users are coming from. If I had over looked clear and concise information sources, then an admonishment from you would have been in order. However, that was not the case, and your "advice" only spills over as arrogant badgering. Thanks for your time. Steve.
