Hi Ben,
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:35 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> These Maxim chips are similar to MAX6657 but use unsigned temperature
> values to allow for readings up to 145 degrees.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings at solarflare.com>
> ---
> drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 3 +-
> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> index b8ab275..cc40c88 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> @@ -485,7 +485,8 @@ config SENSORS_LM90
> help
> If you say yes here you get support for National Semiconductor LM90,
> LM86, LM89 and LM99, Analog Devices ADM1032 and ADT7461, and Maxim
> - MAX6657, MAX6658, MAX6659, MAX6680 and MAX6681 sensor chips.
> + MAX6646, MAX6647, MAX6649, MAX6657, MAX6658, MAX6659, MAX6680 and
> + MAX6681 sensor chips.
>
> This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module
> will be called lm90.
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> index 9ee7e3a..dbf0dfe 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> @@ -25,9 +25,10 @@
> * that are not handled by this driver. Among others, it has a higher
> * accuracy than the LM90, much like the LM86 does.
> *
> - * This driver also supports the MAX6657, MAX6658 and MAX6659 sensor
> - * chips made by Maxim. These chips are similar to the LM86.
> - * Note that there is no easy way to differentiate between the three
> + * This driver also supports the MAX6646, MAX6647, MAX6649, MAX6657,
> + * MAX6658 and MAX6659 sensor chips made by Maxim. These chips are
> + * similar to the LM86.
This isn't really correct. While the MAX6657, MAX6658 and MAX6659 are
indeed similar to the LM86, the MAX6646, MAX6647 and MAX6649 use a
different temperature encoding to support a different temperature range.
> + * Note that there is no easy way to differentiate between the MAX665x
> * variants. The extra address and features of the MAX6659 are not
> * supported by this driver. These chips lack the remote temperature
> * offset feature.
This is also not totally correct, you can differentiate between the
MAX6657 and the MAX6646 (different device ID register value).
So, please make a separate paragraph for the MAX6646, MAX6647 and
MAX6649 chips, instead of merging them in the MAX6657 paragraph.
Your patch should also update Documentation/hwmon/lm90 to mention the
newly supported chips.
> @@ -76,9 +77,10 @@
> * Addresses to scan
> * Address is fully defined internally and cannot be changed except for
> * MAX6659, MAX6680 and MAX6681.
> - * LM86, LM89, LM90, LM99, ADM1032, ADM1032-1, ADT7461, MAX6657 and MAX6658
> - * have address 0x4c.
> - * ADM1032-2, ADT7461-2, LM89-1, and LM99-1 have address 0x4d.
> + * LM86, LM89, LM90, LM99, ADM1032, ADM1032-1, ADT7461, MAX6649, MAX6657
> + * and MAX6658 have address 0x4c.
> + * ADM1032-2, ADT7461-2, LM89-1, LM99-1 and MAX6646 have address 0x4d.
> + * MAX6647 has address 0x4e.
> * MAX6659 can have address 0x4c, 0x4d or 0x4e (unsupported).
> * MAX6680 and MAX6681 can have address 0x18, 0x19, 0x1a, 0x29, 0x2a, 0x2b,
> * 0x4c, 0x4d or 0x4e.
> @@ -91,7 +93,8 @@ static const unsigned short normal_i2c[] = {
> * Insmod parameters
> */
>
> -I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_7(lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, adt7461, max6680);
> +I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_8(lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, adt7461, max6680,
> + max6646);
>
> /*
> * The LM90 registers
> @@ -132,7 +135,7 @@ I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_7(lm90, adm1032, lm99, lm86, max6657, adt7461, max6680);
> #define LM90_REG_R_TCRIT_HYST 0x21
> #define LM90_REG_W_TCRIT_HYST 0x21
>
> -/* MAX6657-specific registers */
> +/* MAX6646/6647/6649/6657/6658/6659 registers */
>
> #define MAX6657_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMPL 0x11
>
> @@ -185,7 +188,7 @@ struct lm90_data {
> s16 temp11[5]; /* 0: remote input
> 1: remote low limit
> 2: remote high limit
> - 3: remote offset (except max6657)
> + 3: remote offset (except max6646 and max6657)
> 4: local input */
> u8 temp_hyst;
> u8 alarms; /* bitvector */
> @@ -197,6 +200,8 @@ struct lm90_data {
> * value, the LM90 uses signed 8-bit values with LSB = 1 degree Celsius.
> * For remote temperatures and limits, it uses signed 11-bit values with
> * LSB = 0.125 degree Celsius, left-justified in 16-bit registers.
> + * Some Maxim chips use 16-bit signed or unsigned values for local and
> + * both remote temperatures.
That's a bit confusing, makes it sound like the same chip can do both,
and also that these chips have 16 bits of actual resolution. I am also
not aware of any of these chips supporting two external temperature
sensors? What about just:
* Some Maxim chips use unsigned values instead.
> */
>
> static inline int temp_from_s8(s8 val)
> @@ -204,11 +209,21 @@ static inline int temp_from_s8(s8 val)
> return val * 1000;
> }
>
> +static inline int temp_from_u8(u8 val)
> +{
> + return val * 1000;
> +}
> +
> static inline int temp_from_s16(s16 val)
> {
> return val / 32 * 125;
> }
>
> +static inline int temp_from_u16(u16 val)
> +{
> + return val / 32 * 125;
> +}
> +
> static s8 temp_to_s8(long val)
> {
> if (val <= -128000)
> @@ -220,6 +235,15 @@ static s8 temp_to_s8(long val)
> return (val + 500) / 1000;
> }
>
> +static u8 temp_to_u8(long val)
> +{
> + if (val <= 0)
> + return 0;
> + if (val >= 255000)
> + return 255;
> + return (val + 500) / 1000;
> +}
> +
> static s16 temp_to_s16(long val)
> {
> if (val <= -128000)
> @@ -311,6 +335,8 @@ static ssize_t show_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
>
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> temp = temp_from_u8_adt7461(data, data->temp8[attr->index]);
> + else if (data->kind == max6646)
> + temp = temp_from_u8(data->temp8[attr->index]);
> else
> temp = temp_from_s8(data->temp8[attr->index]);
>
> @@ -336,6 +362,8 @@ static ssize_t set_temp8(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_u8_adt7461(data, val);
> + else if (data->kind == max6646)
> + data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_u8(val);
> else
> data->temp8[nr] = temp_to_s8(val);
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[nr], data->temp8[nr]);
> @@ -352,6 +380,8 @@ static ssize_t show_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
>
> if (data->kind == adt7461)
> temp = temp_from_u16_adt7461(data, data->temp11[attr->index]);
> + else if (data->kind == max6646)
> + temp = temp_from_u16(data->temp11[attr->index]);
> else
> temp = temp_from_s16(data->temp11[attr->index]);
>
> @@ -381,12 +411,15 @@ static ssize_t set_temp11(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_u16_adt7461(data, val);
> else if (data->kind == max6657 || data->kind == max6680)
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_s8(val) << 8;
> + else if (data->kind == max6646)
> + data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_u8(val) << 8;
> else
> data->temp11[nr] = temp_to_s16(val);
>
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[(nr - 1) * 2],
> data->temp11[nr] >> 8);
> - if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680)
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> + && data->kind != max6646)
> i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, reg[(nr - 1) * 2 + 1],
> data->temp11[nr] & 0xff);
> mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
> @@ -696,6 +729,8 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, int address, int kind)
> && (reg_config1 & 0x03) == 0x00
> && reg_convrate <= 0x07) {
> kind = max6680;
> + } else if (chip_id == 0x59) {
> + kind = max6646;
I see no reason why you wouldn't check the config and conversion rate
registers as we do for all other chips, to make detection a bit more
reliable.
> }
> }
>
> @@ -725,6 +760,8 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, int address, int kind)
> name = "max6680";
> } else if (kind == adt7461) {
> name = "adt7461";
> + } else if (kind == max6646) {
> + name = "max6646";
> }
>
> /* We can fill in the remaining client fields */
> @@ -748,7 +785,7 @@ static int lm90_detect(struct i2c_adapter *adapter, int address, int kind)
> &dev_attr_pec)))
> goto exit_remove_files;
> }
> - if (data->kind != max6657) {
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646) {
> if ((err = device_create_file(&new_client->dev,
> &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr)))
> goto exit_remove_files;
> @@ -811,7 +848,7 @@ static int lm90_detach_client(struct i2c_client *client)
> hwmon_device_unregister(data->hwmon_dev);
> sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &lm90_group);
> device_remove_file(&client->dev, &dev_attr_pec);
> - if (data->kind != max6657)
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646)
> device_remove_file(&client->dev,
> &sensor_dev_attr_temp2_offset.dev_attr);
>
> @@ -871,7 +908,7 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_CRIT, &data->temp8[3]);
> lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_TCRIT_HYST, &data->temp_hyst);
>
> - if (data->kind == max6657) {
> + if (data->kind == max6657 || data->kind == max6646) {
> lm90_read16(client, LM90_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMP,
> MAX6657_REG_R_LOCAL_TEMPL,
> &data->temp11[4]);
> @@ -886,6 +923,7 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWH, &h) == 0) {
> data->temp11[1] = h << 8;
> if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> + && data->kind != max6646
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_LOWL,
> &l) == 0)
> data->temp11[1] |= l;
> @@ -893,12 +931,13 @@ static struct lm90_data *lm90_update_device(struct device *dev)
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHH, &h) == 0) {
> data->temp11[2] = h << 8;
> if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6680
> + && data->kind != max6646
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_HIGHL,
> &l) == 0)
> data->temp11[2] |= l;
> }
>
> - if (data->kind != max6657) {
> + if (data->kind != max6657 && data->kind != max6646) {
> if (lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_OFFSH,
> &h) == 0
> && lm90_read_reg(client, LM90_REG_R_REMOTE_OFFSL,
All the rest looks good.
--
Jean Delvare
