On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:12:06 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:35:48AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > That being said, probe() isn't supposed to do device detection in the > > first place. If you want devices to be auto-detected, there is the > > detect() function for that. Right now there is no way for the user to > > instantiate a device if it doesn't have exactly the expected ID. This > > could happen though, if using a compatible part from a different > > manufacturer, or a recent part with a new ID, for example. > > Yes. Problem with PMBus devices, though, is that most of them can reside on any > I2C address, so a detect function would have to cover too many i2c addresses > and is not really feasible. > > If there is a new part, people should use the generic PMBus driver, > not any of the device specific drivers. I have not seen an instance where the > device specific driver could be used for another chip or chip variant without > a change in the driver. Call it over-cautious, but one of the concerns I have > is that a wrongly addressed or programmed PMBus chip can easily make a board > unusable or even physically destroy it. I managed to do both several times > myself - last time just a couple of days ago with a LM25066, which went up in > smoke after writing a wrong value into one of its registers. I want to have > as many safeguards as I can in place to prevent that from happening. OK, fair enough. Might be worth a comment in the driver. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
