On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 13:07 -0400, Björn Gerhart wrote: > Hi Jean, > > Am 16.05.2012 um 11:23 schrieb Jean Delvare: > > On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:52:31 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:51:08 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> The data sheet says, with Register 0x27/Bit 0: > >>> > >>> Function Selection of Pin 93 (FSP) > >>> 0: VIN5/FAN_TAC3/SIN6 > >>> If bit 2 of index 2Ch is 1, FAN_TAC3/SIN6 input is enabled; otherwise > >>> select VIN5 input. > >>> 1: GP30 > >>> > >>> Assuming the above is correct, I think I'll rename "uart6" to "fan3" and > >>> use > >>> > >>> fan3 = reg2C & (1 << 2); > >>> ... > >>> /* Check if fan3 is there or not */ > >>> if ((reg27 & (1 << 0)) || !fan3) > >>> sio_data->skip_fan |= (1 << 2); > >>> ... > >>> if ((reg27 & (1 << 0)) || fan3) > >>> sio_data->skip_in |= (1 << 5); /* No VIN5 */ > >>> > >>> Does that make sense ? > >> > >> That's what the datasheet says, at least. I find it weird that enabling > >> UART6 has an effect on VIN5 vs. FAN3_TAC, especially when UART6 pins > >> can be remapped to a completely different location, but maybe this is > >> really how the chip works. > >> > Yes, our hw developers formerly also had to contact ITE for discussions about different contexts for their hw wiring/implementation. > > >> I think I wouldn't introduce variable fan3, as it is kind of a > >> misnomer, and a proper name would be overly long. But this is an > >> implementation detail. > >> > >> Björn, what is your design using pin 93 for? > > > As discussed with our hw developers, in our design pin 93 is used for FAN_TAC3. The reason is, that uart6 gets moved. If uart6 would not get moved, then pin 93 would be SIN6. So in turn the decision between FAN_TAC3 and SIN6 is not detectable. > However, maybe the proper design-specific sensors.conf could ignore fan3 if pin 93 is used for SIN6. > > > I've updated the driver at > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/it87/ > > > > with Björn's patch updated per the discussion above. Björn, can you > > please give it a try and confirm it works for you? > > > Thanks for the update! I agree with the logic part you modified. > And yes, it works like expected (tested on IT8783F@kernel 2.6.32, configured as described above) ;-) > Excellent. I already merged Jean's changes with my pending patch set, so hopefully everything is ok now. Thanks a lot for your help! Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
