On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:03:27PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 09:14:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:34:09PM +0200, Josef Gajdusek wrote:
> > > static const struct i2c_device_id emc1403_idtable[] = {
> > > - { "emc1403", 0 },
> > > - { "emc1404", 1 },
> > > - { "emc1423", 0 },
> > > - { "emc1424", 1 },
> > > + { "emc1402", emc1402 },
> > > + { "emc1403", emc1403 },
> > > + { "emc1404", emc1404 },
> > > + { "emc1422", emc1402 },
> > > + { "emc1423", emc1403 },
> > > + { "emc1424", emc1404 },
> >
> > Wonder if we should list the emc141x chips here. Jean, any thoughts ?
>
> Yes we should, so that people can declare the right chip in platform
> files, device tree etc. We can map the additional names to existing
> types if the chips are fully compatible.
>
The chips are not only compatible, the even have the same device IDs.
Maybe I missed it, but I did not find a difference.
I'll add another patch to my list.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
