On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 11:51 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:17:19 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Also update IDT datasheet locations. > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/hwmon/jc42 | 18 +++++++++++++----- > > drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 6 +++--- > > drivers/hwmon/jc42.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/hwmon/jc42 b/Documentation/hwmon/jc42 > > index e713375..fd70d23 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/hwmon/jc42 > > +++ b/Documentation/hwmon/jc42 > > @@ -7,21 +7,29 @@ Supported chips: > > Addresses scanned: I2C 0x18 - 0x1f > > Datasheets: > > http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/ADT7408.pdf > > + * Atmel AT30TS00 > > + Prefix: 'at30ts00' > > + Addresses scanned: I2C 0x18 - 0x1f > > + Datasheets: > > + http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8585.pdf > > * IDT TSE2002B3, TS3000B3 > > - Prefix: 'tse2002b3', 'ts3000b3' > > + Prefix: 'tse2002b3', 'tse2002gb2', 'ts3000b3', 'ts300gb2' > > You mean ts3000gb2 not ts300gb2. But do we really want to have 4 > different prefixes for only 2 device IDs anyway? > I replaced it with tse2002 and ts3000. > I'm not even sure why we defined that many different prefixes in the > first place when we treat them all the same, and autodetection doesn't > even bother setting the prefix right. All these chips are > register-compatible by definition, so I really wouldn't mind dropping > all these different prefixes (which I don't think anyone is using > today) and going with "jc42" for everyone. > Good point. I'll change that with a separate patch. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
