Hi Jean, On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 07:48:54AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:28:16 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:12:29PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Hi Guenter, > > > > > > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:34:35 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > To apply this patch, the previously submitted lm90 cleanup patch has to be > > > > applied first. > > > > > > > > My main concern with this patch is the chip detection code, specifically if it > > > > is able to safely distinguish between MAX6680/81 and MAX6695/96. > > > > Would be great to get some test coverage from a system with one of those chips. > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have any of these Maxim chips at hand. I have an > > > ADM1032 but it won't offer much coverage obviously. And I have dumps of > > > Maxim chips, but the real chips behave differently, so it's of little > > > help. > > > > > Do you by any chance have register dumps of max6657/58/59 ? > > Yes I do. I have dumps of max6658 and max6659 chips, I'm attaching > them. Please keep in mind that registers are read sequentially, in > order, and this matters because these chips return the last read value > whenever you access a nonexistent register. This even holds for > registers with fewer than 8 bits, e.g. config1. > > > max6659 also supports a 3rd upper limit. Turns out it is convenient to add support > > for this limit first before adding support for max6696. To do that, I'll need > > to be able to distinguish between max6657/58 and max6659. My thought is to check > > for the address and if register 0x16 exists. > > > > Also, do you happen to remember why address 0x4e for max6659 is not supported by the driver ? > > The code only says that it isn't supported, and it does not detect it, but there > > is not reason. sensors-detect does detect it at address 0x4e. > > I think the reason is historical. As we never had a report of anyone > with a MAX6659 chip at 0x4e, and detection for this device is weak, and > the driver didn't support any other device at this address, it seemed > more reasonable to not scan the address at all. Now that the driver > supports more devices at this address and thus scans it anyway, I have > no objection supporting the MAX6659 at 0x4e. > Too bad - registers 0x16 and 0x17 exist on both 6658 and 6659. So the only way to detect 6659 would be the address (0x4d or 0x4e), and we would mis-detect it on 0x4c. Is that worth it ? Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
