On 6/14/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > Hi Juerg, Hans, > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:40:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Juerg Haefliger wrote: > > > I looked through the SMSC sch311x datasheet and discovered that the HW > > > monitoring capabilities of the two chips are nearly identical. The > > > sch311x is missing some of the optional features like fan4 and pwmA > > > and pwmB and registers are accessed through the LPC interface rather > > > than an SMBus interface as is the case for the dme1737. > > > So if I were to enhance the dme1737 driver to support the sch311x > > > family this would imply that sch311x owners would also need to load > > > i2c modules which aren't really necessary/used in this case. > > > On the other hand, two separate drivers means a lot of code redundancy... > > > > > > Any thoughts on which way to go? Personally I prefer a single driver, > > > way easier to maintain. > > > > I say go for the single driver approach, > > Agreed. It may sound suboptimal, but OTOH the SMSC SCH311x isn't very > popular so it doesn't really matter. And this won't be the first driver > like this: take a look at the w83781d and lm78 drivers, they support > ISA and I2C access to the chips, so you depend on the i2c stack even if > you use only the ISA access. OK, I wasn't aware that there are other drivers doing this. > A different approach was taken for the ams driver, which also support > two access methods, but support is in separate files, which can be > selected (or not) through Kconfig. > > The ideal way would be separate kernel modules, so that you don't have > to exclude options at compilation time, and still don't have to load > i2c-core if you don't need it. Or a split approach with a common module providing all the brains and two separate modules for i2c/lpc access. > But it's probably more work than is > worth. If someone really cares, he/she gets to do it. In the meantime, > an hybrid driver will be much better than no support at all. Works for me. > BTW, Juerg, a driver had been contributed for this chip some times ago: > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2006-July/016961.html > Not sure if you were aware of this, so I thought I'd mention it. If you > work on this, please also update the Devices page on the wiki > accordingly. Yes, I saw the driver, started looking at it and noticed the similarities. ...juerg > Thanks, > -- > Jean Delvare >
