Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:12:32 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> As discussed on IRC the Syleus does not like our way of seeing if a device is
>> present at a certain address, this patch implements a workaround consisting of
>> doing a byte data read instead of a quick command or a byte read.
>>
>> Once reviewed I can commit this myself.
>
>> Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
>> ===================================================================
>> --- prog/detect/sensors-detect (revision 5642)
>> +++ prog/detect/sensors-detect (working copy)
>> @@ -2629,7 +2629,14 @@
>> {
>> my ($file, $addr, $funcs) = @_;
>>
>> - if (($addr >= 0x50 && $addr <= 0x5F)
>> + if ($addr == 0x73) {
>> + # Special case for FSC chips, as at least the Syleus locks
>> + # up with our regular probe code. Note that to our current
>> + # knowledge only FSC chips live on this address, and for them
>> + # this probe method is safe
>
> Missing final dot ;)
>
>> + return 0 unless ($funcs & I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE);
>
> Wrong test: you want to check for I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE_DATA.
>
I tried that, but I got an undefined symbol (or somethinglike that) error
>> + return i2c_smbus_access($file, SMBUS_READ, 0, SMBUS_BYTE_DATA, []);
>> + } elsif (($addr >= 0x50 && $addr <= 0x5F)
>> || ($addr >= 0x30 && $addr <= 0x37)) {
>> # This covers all EEPROMs we know of, including page protection
>> # addresses. Note that some page protection addresses will not
>
> Minor nitpicking: I'd also move the test after the EEPROM test, keeping
> the tests in both numeric and historical order.
>
Ok, will do when the I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BYTE_DATA thingie is sorted.
Regards,
Hans
