On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 07:09:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 05:51:23AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:31:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:13:45AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:07:04 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > I'll also add a check for the HG-I. > > > > > > > > Do you have a datasheet for that one too? > > > > > > > No. However, since we have a tester, we will have test coverage, > > > so I figured it should be worth a try. If it doesn't work > > > I can still drop it from the final patch. > > > > FYI, I have a datasheet, which unfortunately I am not allowed to share. > > Please let me know if you want me to look up something for you. > > > How about the changed registers ? Would give us an idea if the chip is closer to > 667 or to 667-B. There is no summary of this available. The only way is to go through both datasheets and compare all registers in sequence. This takes time, which is exactly why I couldn't find the time to do it :( > > > I suspect it is the same as the HG with a different chip ID. > > > > Beware, it's a different device number (677 vs. 667) so I would expect > > more differences. > > Ah, I missed that. I thought it was 667-I. Yes, you are right, that suggests > more differences. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
