Hi Guenter, Am 11.05.2012 um 21:15 schrieb Björn Gerhart: > Hi @ll, > > Am 11.05.2012 um 15:38 schrieb Guenter Roeck: >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 05:23:52AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: >> [ ... ] >>> >>>>> So my personal guess is that this bit switches VIN7 to the internal >>>>> source just as with the other chips. >>>>> >>>> Hmmm ... no idea what I should do. Play it safe or assume this is an error >>>> in the data sheet ? I tend towards playing safe, but not too much. >>>> Guess I am waiting for someone to convince me otherwise... >>> >>> I would not skip VIN7 until we know more. People will never report >>> about missing 5VSB monitoring, but they will report if 5VSB looks wrong. >>> >>> Do we have any tester for the IT8783F yet? What you could do for now is >> >> Bjoern Gerhart has been testing it quite extensively. I don't recall >> what they do with VIN7, though. >> > Yes, I have an IT8783F hw configuration with voltage in7 connected to 1.1V nominal. I can give it a re-test with the latest patches applied on beginning of next week against kernel 2.6.32. Then I can also ask if my hw colleagues have an idea about the pin 91 mystery. > In our design, the IT8783F's Pin 91 is defined as VIN7, and likewise bit2 of index 0x2C is 1. As I'm not yet used to git: which would be the easiest way to get the it87 with all patches integrated for kernel 2.6.32 for testing purposes? On your github site, I didn't find the appropriate entry for the patches you sent... Björn _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
