On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:27:14 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > The optional extended local temperature register can never have > > address 0, as this address is already used by another register. Thus > > we can get rid of flag LM90_HAVE_LOCAL_EXT and simply rely on > > reg_local_ext being non-zero to determine if a given chip has this > > extension or not. This makes the code more simple. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Stijn Devriendt <sdevrien@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Applied (with the max6657 fix applied to the original patch breaking it). Perfect, thank you! -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
