Hi Jean,
> Hi Juerg,
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:49:15 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:20:40 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>> > I don't understand your proposal. Could you elaborate?
>>
>> I propose that you don't change the value of force_id in the driver.
>> This value can be set by the user and should be considered read-only by
>> the driver itself. The resulting code might be slightly larger, but it
>> is also more correct:
>>
>> /* Skip chip detection if module is loaded with force_id parameter */
>> switch (force_id) {
>> case SCH5127_ID:
>> data->type = sch5127;
>> break;
>> case SCH3112_ID:
>> data->type = sch311x;
>> break;
>> default:
>> company = dme1737_read(data, DME1737_REG_COMPANY);
>> device = dme1737_read(data, DME1737_REG_DEVICE);
>>
>> if ((company == DME1737_COMPANY_SMSC) &&
>> (device == SCH311X_DEVICE)) {
>> data->type = sch5127;
>> } else if ((company == DME1737_COMPANY_SMSC) &&
>> (device == SCH5127_DEVICE)) {
>> data->type = sch311x;
>> } else {
>> err = -ENODEV;
>> goto exit_kfree;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> data->name = data->type == sch5127 ? "sch5127" : "sch311x";
>
> Any progress with this patch? Would be nice to finally have support for
> the SCH5127 in kernel 2.6.35.
I sent a revised patch yesterday that you should have in your inbox.
Waiting for Jeff.
...juerg
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
