Hi Per, On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:44:19AM -0400, Per Dalén wrote: > Hi Guenter and Jean, > > Sorry for the delay. Much stuff at work... > Here's (Jean's ;) patch. > > BR > Per > > On 05/28/2011 04:04 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Hi Jean, > > > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 04:36:31AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > >> Hi Guenter, > >> > >> On Fri, 27 May 2011 21:51:13 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> The attached patch (on top of Per's most recent patch) works quite nicely. > >>> Per, maybe you can just merge it with your patch and resubmit it. > >> > >> Looks good, pretty much what I had in mind. But I think you could make > >> the code even more compact: > >> > >> /* sanity check */ > >> if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, 0x04) != 0x4D > >> || i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, 0x06) != 0x4D > >> || i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, 0xff) != 0x4D) > >> return -ENODEV; > >> > > Yes, you are right. I didn't do it to avoid a checkpatch warning, but forgot > > that I don't use a variable anymore. > > > > Guenter > > Improve the detection of MAX6642 by reading non exciting registers (0x04, 0x06 and 0xff). The value of those registers should be the same as the last valid resister read. > > Signed-off-by: Per Dalen <per.dalen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I want to send this off to Linus with my next set of patches, so I added the second set of checks myself. No need to resubmit. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
