On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 06:47:21 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 03:01:05AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 09:18:13 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Thinking about it and looking into NetBSD code - some of the chips have > > > fixed sensor resolution, others have configurable resolution. In the > > > latter case, the NetBSD driver configures it. Before I drop the > > > capability to separate chips based on the prefix, it might make sense to > > > first determine if that is something we want or should support. > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Isn't this all standardized in the capability and resolution registers, > > and thus independent of the vendor and device ID? > > > The capability register is read-only. The resolution register is non-standard > and exists (as far as I can see) only on MCP98242/98243. ST Microelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000 chips to support it as well. Anyway, this sole difference doesn't justify having a list of a dozen chip names. We could have a single flag HAS_RESOLUTION_REGISTER and set it as appropriate. > > (...) > > introducing a new attribute for resolution, but a number of details > > will need discussion first, in particular the attribute name and unit > > and whether it is global or per input. > > Do you know of any other chips where the resolution is configurable ? > That should probably be the deciding factor if we introduce such an attribute. I seem to recall LM75 compatible chips optionally supporting extra resolution bits. Ah, yes, Texas Instruments' TMP75/175/275 chips, for example. > Not sure if it is worth it, though. The default resolution for the above chips > is 0.25 degrees C. That should really be good enough. I never understood why > a resolution of 0.0625 degrees C would make sense for a chip with an accuracy > of +/- 1 degree C. I fully agree. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
