Hi Guenter,
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:20:22 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> The following patch adds support for emc1023, emc1043, emc1053, and emc1063 to sensors-detect.
> It is based on the emc1023 detection code written by Anish Patel, but supports additional chips
> and is at the same time more restrictive.
>
> --
> Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
> ===================================================================
> --- prog/detect/sensors-detect (revision 5907)
> +++ prog/detect/sensors-detect (working copy)
> @@ -1195,6 +1195,26 @@
> i2c_addrs => [0x2f],
> i2c_detect => sub { fintek_detect(@_, 7); },
> }, {
> + name => "SMSC EMC1023",
> + driver => "to-be-written", # emc1023
> + i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4c, 0x4d],
> + i2c_detect => sub { emc1023_detect(@_, 0); },
> + }, {
> + name => "SMSC EMC1043",
> + driver => "to-be-written", # emc1023
> + i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4c, 0x4d],
> + i2c_detect => sub { emc1023_detect(@_, 1); },
> + }, {
> + name => "SMSC EMC1053",
> + driver => "to-be-written", # emc1023
> + i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4c, 0x4d],
> + i2c_detect => sub { emc1023_detect(@_, 2); },
> + }, {
> + name => "SMSC EMC1063",
> + driver => "to-be-written", # emc1023
> + i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4c, 0x4d],
> + i2c_detect => sub { emc1023_detect(@_, 3); },
> + }, {
> name => "SMSC EMC1403",
> driver => "emc1403",
> i2c_addrs => [0x18, 0x2a, 0x4c, 0x4d],
> @@ -5372,6 +5392,51 @@
> return 7;
> }
>
> +# Chips to detect: 0 = emc1023, 1 = emc1043, 2 = emc1053, 3 = emc1063
We normally use capitals for device names.
> +# Registers used:
> +# 0xed: Device ID register
> +# 0xfe: Vendor ID register
> +# 0xff: Revision register
> +sub emc1023_detect
> +{
> + my ($file, $addr, $chip) = @_;
> + my $dev_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xed);
> + my $man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xfe);
> + my $rev = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xff);
> +
> + return unless $man_id == 0x5d; # SMSC
> +
> + if ($chip == 0) {
> + return unless ($rev == 0) || ($rev == 1);
You have the same test for all chips, so it could be moved to the
common part. Also, given the expected linearity of revisions, $rev <= 1
would look better.
> + return if ($addr == 0x4c) && ($dev_id != 0x04); # emc1023-1
> + return if ($addr == 0x4d) && ($dev_id != 0x05); # emc1023-2
> + return if ($addr == 0x48) && ($dev_id != 0x06); # emc1023-3
> + return if ($addr == 0x49) && ($dev_id != 0x07); # emc1023-4
> + } elsif ($chip == 1) {
> + return unless ($rev == 0) || ($rev == 1);
> + if ($addr == 0x4c) { # emc1043-1, emc1043-5
> + return unless ($dev_id == 0x0c) || ($dev_id == 0x2c);
> + }
> + return if ($addr == 0x4d) && ($dev_id != 0x0d); # emc1043-2
> + return if ($addr == 0x48) && ($dev_id != 0x0e); # emc1043-3
> + return if ($addr == 0x49) && ($dev_id != 0x0f); # emc1043-4
> + } elsif ($chip == 2) {
> + return unless ($rev == 0) || ($rev == 1);
> + return if ($addr == 0x4c) && ($dev_id != 0x3c); # emc1053-1
> + return if ($addr == 0x4d) && ($dev_id != 0x3d); # emc1053-2
> + return if ($addr == 0x48) && ($dev_id != 0x3e); # emc1053-3
> + return if ($addr == 0x49) && ($dev_id != 0x3f); # emc1053-4
> + } elsif ($chip == 3) {
> + return unless ($rev == 0) || ($rev == 1);
> + return if ($addr == 0x4c) && ($dev_id != 0x30); # emc1063-1
> + return if ($addr == 0x4d) && ($dev_id != 0x31); # emc1063-2
> + return if ($addr == 0x48) && ($dev_id != 0x32); # emc1063-3
> + return if ($addr == 0x49) && ($dev_id != 0x33); # emc1063-4
> + }
> +
> + return 7;
> +}
> +
> # Chip to detect: 0 = EMC1403, 1 = EMC1404, 2 = EMC2103, 3 = EMC1423
> # Registers used:
> # 0xfd: Device ID register
>
Looks good otherwise.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
