On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:30:25AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:18:30 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:00:23AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Thanks for clarifying. I didn't read the datasheet, and what Ira wrote > > > confused me. If the alarm is related to the value of in2_input, then of > > > course in2_alarm, in2_min_alarm (assuming in2_min is present) or > > > in2_max_alarm (assuming in2_max is present) makes sense. > > > > Is that an implied requirement for supporting min_alarm ? Reason for asking is that many chips > > have limit alarms but no matching (readable/settable) limit values. ltc4215, ltc4245, and ltc4261 > > are examples. Alarm status is determined by a voltage on a pin exceeding a hardcoded limit, > > and the actual voltage on a pin is determined by external resistor arrays. > > The ltc4245 and ltc4261 drivers already provide min_alarm and/or max_alarm but not min and max. > > I had our recent discussion about the "sensors" code in mind. I seem to > recall that the code currently ignores limit-specific alarms if there > is no matching limit. > > That being said, if some chip drivers really have to do that, then > probably we'll have to adjust the "sensors" code, rather than the other > way around. > Makes sense. I'll look into it. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
