On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:14:00 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Did sensors-detect misdetect that chip as an LM75 too, or was the > > extended detection logic there good enough already? > > sensors-detect is fine. Easy to test -load i2c-stub and see what > happens. That doesn't always work because the value returned for some non-existent register addresses depend on the previous read. You can only test that with a real chip. Plus I didn't know which chip was being misdetected for you ;-) > I assume that is due to the "All registers hold same value" > test. Should I use that test instead ? I kind of prefer it. The tests are different and thus may result in different outcomes for various chips. It's very hard to predict which is better. All I can say is that the sensors-detect code needs the value of the current temperature register, which isn't read during detection currently, so using that logic would make driver loading slightly slower. Not sure if it really matters. All in all, I think that having the same detection code on both side is important, as it avoids unexpected results. I don't really care which one you pick, it can always be adjusted later (as is has already been over the years) if misdetections are reported. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
