On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:10:15PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. > Agreed. Robert, can you send a patch ? Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
