Hi Andrew, Adding back Steven and the lm-sensors list... On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:53:42 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > So you're OK with the patch as-is? I did not review it. And testing it doesn't seem positive. First of all, I get the following in my logs after loading the driver: (null): not a tmp102 Which suggests the use of an uninitialized device struct. Also, the detection fails early, I don't think the detection routine works. Looking at the code, it doesn't seem to correspond to the TMP102 register map at all (assuming the dump I got from Steven is really from a TMP102) Steven, did you ever test it? Honestly, I don't think it makes sense to have a detect routine for this chip, given that it lacks identification registers. We relied on ugly detection quirks for the LM75 only because that chip was very popular on PC motherboards at one point in time. For devices used on embedded designs and which are always enumerated, we don't need detection routines. Then, using the tmp102 driver on the dump sent by Steven produces the following "sensors" output: tmp102-i2c-3-48 Adapter: SMBus stub driver temp1: +2.6°C (high = +15.0°C, hyst = +9.0°C) These values are suspiciously low and smell like the wrong base unit is used (1/100 °C instead of 1/1000 °C). Quick code examination seems to confirm this. So, no, I am not OK with the patch as-is, it needs more work. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
