On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:15:21 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:59:03AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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 :( > > > Yes, I noticed. Changes can be quite subtle, too. > > I'll remove the HG-I chip detection from the next patch rev > unless I manage to get a datasheet as well. I agree. The 667HG-B support seems to be easier to get, and more urgent too, judging by the number of requests. Let's get this tested and upstream first, and then we see what can be done for the 677HG-I. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
