On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:27:57PM -0700, David Hubbard wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Guenter Roeck <groeck-dsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 01:00:30AM -0700, David Hubbard wrote: > > > I'd like to send the same patch again but add signed-off-by this time :) > > I > > > apologize. > > > > > > * * * * * > > > > > > Add experimental support for the it8603e chip (Asus f2a85-m motherboard) > > > Write only tested for pwmN and pwmN_enable. > > > Read tested, but the following appear broken: > > > alarms > > > fanN_alarm > > > inN_alarm > > > inN_max > > > inN_min > > > intrusionN_alarm > > > pwmN_auto_channels_temp > > > pwmN_freq > > > > I don't think it is a good idea to report attributes which "appear to be > > broken". At least for the voltage limits and the alarms it should be > > relatively > > easy to find out if they work/don't work. Whatever doesn't work should not > > be > > there. > > > > They don't work but I don't know why. Until we have a datasheet, I'd like > to leave them in the *experimental* driver and wait for a second opinion > from someone who actually has the chip. > > > > > > > temp3_input (there is no 3rd analog temp input to the chip) > > > > > Other IT87xx chips report the AMDSTI/PCH temperature as one of the inputs. > > This > > is usually configurable. > > > > > Ok, fine with me. > > Another question is to what extend we can depend on the logic in > > it87_find() to > > detect enabled chip features. It might make more sense to create another > > if case > > in that function to handle the IT8603 separately. > > > > it87_find() seems to have identified the correct features of the IT8603. I > don't understand your concern with the way it is currently working. > "they don't work ... " and "identified the correct features" seems to somewhat contradict each other. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
