Hi Jean,
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:57:39AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 16:19:34 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Auto-detection for this chip is highly unreliable, and one of its
> > I2C addresses can also be used by EEPROMs, increasing the risk for
> > false positives even more. Drop auto-detection entirely to remove
> > the risk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwmon/atxp1.c | 46 ----------------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 46 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/atxp1.c b/drivers/hwmon/atxp1.c
> > index 4c829bb2f9db..75fa2f603fa1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwmon/atxp1.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/atxp1.c
> > @@ -43,8 +43,6 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Sebastian Witt <se.witt@xxxxxxx>");
> > #define ATXP1_VIDMASK 0x1f
> > #define ATXP1_GPIO1MASK 0x0f
> >
> > -static const unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x37, 0x4e, I2C_CLIENT_END };
> > -
>
> Maybe replace with a comment listing the possible address and
> explaining that the device must be explicitly instantiated?
>
Ok. Too bad the datasheet is not public; it might be useful to know
if the chip supports other addresses.
> > struct atxp1_data {
> > struct i2c_client *client;
> > struct mutex update_lock;
> > @@ -259,48 +257,6 @@ static struct attribute *atxp1_attrs[] = {
> > };
> > ATTRIBUTE_GROUPS(atxp1);
> >
> > -/* Return 0 if detection is successful, -ENODEV otherwise */
> > -static int atxp1_detect(struct i2c_client *new_client,
> > - struct i2c_board_info *info)
> > -{
> > - struct i2c_adapter *adapter = new_client->adapter;
> > -
> > - u8 temp;
> > -
> > - if (!i2c_check_functionality(adapter, I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA))
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > -
> > - /* Detect ATXP1, checking if vendor ID registers are all zero */
> > - if (!((i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0x3e) == 0) &&
> > - (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0x3f) == 0) &&
> > - (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0xfe) == 0) &&
> > - (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0xff) == 0)))
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * No vendor ID, now checking if registers 0x10,0x11 (non-existent)
> > - * showing the same as register 0x00
> > - */
> > - temp = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0x00);
> > -
> > - if (!((i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0x10) == temp) &&
> > - (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(new_client, 0x11) == temp)))
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > -
> > - /* Get VRM */
> > - temp = vid_which_vrm();
> > -
> > - if ((temp != 90) && (temp != 91)) {
> > - dev_err(&adapter->dev, "atxp1: Not supporting VRM %d.%d\n",
> > - temp / 10, temp % 10);
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > - }
>
> I believe this check should be moved to either atxp1_probe() or the
> module's init function (after expanding module_i2c_driver.)
>
Makes sense. Done.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
