Hi Jean, On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 07:14:28AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:29:53 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Additional temperature attribute support is easy to detect, so do it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/hwmon/pmbus.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus.c > > index b0ea00b..931d940 100644 > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus.c > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus.c > > @@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ static void pmbus_find_sensor_groups(struct i2c_client *client, > > PMBUS_STATUS_TEMPERATURE)) > > info->func[0] |= PMBUS_HAVE_STATUS_TEMP; > > } > > + if (pmbus_check_word_register(client, 0, PMBUS_READ_TEMPERATURE_2)) > > + info->func[0] |= PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP2; > > + if (pmbus_check_word_register(client, 0, PMBUS_READ_TEMPERATURE_3)) > > + info->func[0] |= PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP3; > > Looks good, but is it not possible for a device to have temp2 (or > temp3) but not temp1? If it is, then the test for > PMBUS_STATUS_TEMPERATURE should be moved after the test for > PMBUS_READ_TEMPERATURE_3, and should depend on any of PMBUS_HAVE_TEMP* > being set. If it is not possible, then the code is fine as it is and: > Yes, you are right, that condition can happen. I'll update the code and submit another patch for it. Not that urgent, since I am not (yet) aware of a PMBus device actually doing it, but given the inventiveness of PMBus device developers I am sure we will hit that condition at some point. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
