On 6/16/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: > 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. Is that true for all standard LPC chips? The ISA PNP spec just list this address as part of a reserved card-level address range. > > 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... Ah ja, sorry. Will attach patches in the future... > 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? Sounds fine. I don't care too much even though I wouldn't call the changes complex. I'll give it a try and we'll see how complicated it'll be. ...juerg > -- > Jean Delvare >
