Hi Juerg, On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:26:25 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > On 6/12/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > > Same for me, it depends on how the code looks like. If it's clean and > > safe, no objection. > > > > I am curious how you can tell between the two types of register > > mappings? Is there a perfect solution, or do you have some heuristic? > > I can't tell. It's arbitrary. Some of these chips have the LPC base > address (0x2e/0x4e) in register 0x12 but not all of them of course. > SMSC doesn't make it easy for us... OTOH, standard LPC chips don't have anything at 0x0d (a read will return 0xff, or possibly 0x00?) so you should be able to tell standard chips from non-standard ones that way. > Anyways, below is a first shot. Let me know what you think, I'm sure > it has room for improvements :-) First of all, an improvement would be if your e-mail client didn't fold long lines... For the code, it's way more complex than I hoped it would be. You went for a generic solution, which I agree is a good idea in general, but maybe not in this case. We don't know if other chip manufacturers will diverge from the standard, nor how they will diverge if they do. And we don't know if any of these non-SMSC chips has sensors. So I think I would prefer less intrusive SMSC-specific code as long as we don't need more. More specifically, we could add an optional callback function for each family, which would be called before the standard detection for this family. Depending on the return value of this callback, the standard processing would be applied or skipped for this family. So, in the case of these SMSC chips, the callback would read from 0x0d, and if the value is neither 0xff nor 0x00, a separate list of known non-standard SMSC chips would be processed, and standard processing would be skipped. What do you think? -- Jean Delvare
