On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:46:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:11:52PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > I admit I don't quite get why ITE made these separate configuration > > bits when all it brings is the possibility to select a non-working > > combination... > > > > I will also admit I'm kind of lost with the IT8728F. The datasheet > > suggests that the PCH temperature can be retrieved but there is no > > configuration bit to actually select it? Or if bit 6 of IT87_REG_VID > > supposed to do exactly that? And if so, where does the reading go? > > > Oh, there is. Bit 6 of IT87_REG_VID = 1, and bit 6 of register 0x98 > (IT87_REG_AMDTSI_HSR) = 0, and then there are a couple additional bits in > register 0x9e (as I just noticed, meaning this patch is incomplete and I'll > have to send you another version for AMDTSI support on IT8728F). > Bit 4/5 of register 0xa are irrelevant for PCH on IT8728F. > > Or at least that is how I think it works. I can not test it on my board, > so I did not even bother trying to add support for it. It gets tricky, since > there are now, at least potentially, two separate "external" temperature > sensors, so we would have to change the code structure for it. Maybe sometime > later, if someone has a board supporting it and we can test if it actually > works. Ack. > > BTW maybe we should come up with a different name for register 0x0A for > > newer chips, otherwise the code gets a little confusing. IT87_REG_IFSEL > > maybe? > > Ok with me. Since I have to create another version of the patch anyway, > I'll merge that in, unless you want a separate patch for it. No, merged is fine. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
