Hi Steven, On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:16:54 -0800, Steven King wrote: > On Saturday 06 March 2010 12:35:21 Jean Delvare wrote: > > 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. > > For my specific use the part is connected to an embedded system and is always > enumerated; as lm-sensors doesnt build for this target I wasnt aware of any Out of curiosity, why is lm-sensors not building? What is missing? > way to test the detection code. I certainly wouldnt have any problem with > removing the detection routine entirely... I'm fine with this. > > 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. > > Doh! My bad. > > > So, no, I am not OK with the patch as-is, it needs more work. > > Okay, so besides removing the detect routine, incorporating Andrew's patch and > fixing the base for the temperature conversion, was there anything else I > need to do for v2? Nothing spotted by my quick look, but I didn't actually review your code. If you post an updated version of your patch, I could review it. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
