Hi Robert, Adding the list back, there's really no reason to keep this discussion private. On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:51:13 -0700, Robert Coulson wrote: > As you know, the ds1631 device cannot be uniquely identified, > but it is displayed if a ds1621 device is detected; my thought is to > remove the DS1631 and replace it DS1625. This change would > provide more accurate device information for the user. > > If you agree, then I can submit a small patch for it, so please let me know. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what the problem is nor how you intend to solve it. A patch showing your point might be the best explanation. All these DS16xx devices are hard if not impossible to detect reliably, because they lack device and vendor identification registers. If anything I'd rather drop detection of these from sensors-detect altogether. This script is really only meant to detect sensor chips on PC systems, and I don't think any DS16xx was ever used on a consumer PC system. Detection should probably be dropped from the ds1621 driver too, the proper way to instantiate these devices is explicitly. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
