On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:45:57PM -0500, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:47:51AM -0500, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 18.02.11 at 17:08, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:50:32AM -0500, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> >>> On 18.02.11 at 16:38, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:54:56AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > > >> >> Hallo Jan, > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 08:18:26 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> >> > The interface is identical emc6d102, so all that needs to be added are > > >> >> > some definitions and their uses. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Registers apparently missing in emc6d103:A2 compared to emc6d103:A0, > > >> >> > emc6d103:A1, and emc6d102 (according to the data sheets), but used > > >> >> > unconditionally in the driver: 62[5:7], 6D[0:7], and 6E[0:7]. For that > > >> >> > reason, A2 stepping chips don't get enabled for the time being. > > >> >> > > >> >> The EMC6D103 datasheet on smsc.com doesn't mention revision A2, so I'm > > >> >> curious where you got this information? > > >> >> > > >> > Ah, this made me look. > > >> > > > >> > This is really EMC6D103S. > > >> > See http://www.smsc.com/media/Downloads_Public/Data_Sheets/6d103s.pdf. > > >> > > > >> > So it should not be listed as step A2, but separately as EMC6D103S > > >> > (and it does not have to be mentioned in the code for now, since it is > > >> > really a different chip). > > >> > > >> No. While revision 0.3 indeed only talks about A0 and A1, revision > > >> 0.4 even states 0x6A (where 0x68 is A0 and 0x69 is A1) to be the > > >> default in the version/stepping register. > > >> > > > The datasheet on the SMSC web site is version 0.3 from 2007, the datasheet > > > at http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheets2/15/1543596_1.pdf > > > is version 0.4 from 2005. Confusing. > > > > > > On the other side, SMSC also has the datasheet for EMC6D103S with ID 0x6a > > > on their web site. Maybe they relabeled rev A2 as EMC6D103S to avoid > > > confusion > > > due to the changed functionality. > > > > > > My take is that we should go with SMSC and list it as EMC6D103S. > > > > So do you expect me to re-spin the patch, or will you create a > > fixup on top of it? > > > We should re-spin it. I didn't send it to Linus yet, so we have that option. > I can do it or you can - your call. Let me know. > > Another option (maybe the best) would be to define it as EMC6D103S and > mention that it may also be called EMC6D103 rev. 2. That is what I would > probably do. > I have not heard from you (weekend ?), and I want to send the patches to Linus today. So I'll go ahead and make the changes myself. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
