On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/04/2015 02:48 PM, Justin Maggard wrote:
>>
>> Add support for the IT8732F. This chip is pretty similar to IT8721F,
>> with the main difference being that the ADC LSB is 10.9 mV instead of
>> 12 mV.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin Maggard <jmaggard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi Justin,
>
>> ---
>> Documentation/hwmon/it87 | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 43
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>
>
> I forgot earlier: Please also list the chip in drivers/hwmon/Kconfig.
>
OK, it'll be there in v3. :-)
> [ ... ]
>>
>> static const struct it87_devices it87_devices[] = {
>> [it87] = {
>> @@ -315,6 +319,15 @@ static const struct it87_devices it87_devices[] = {
>> | FEAT_IN7_INTERNAL,
>> .peci_mask = 0x07,
>> },
>> + [it8732] = {
>> + .name = "it8732",
>> + .suffix = "F",
>> + .features = FEAT_NEWER_AUTOPWM | FEAT_16BIT_FANS
>> + | FEAT_TEMP_OFFSET | FEAT_TEMP_OLD_PECI | FEAT_TEMP_PECI
>> + | FEAT_10_9MV_ADC | FEAT_IN7_INTERNAL,
>> + .peci_mask = 0x07,
>> + .old_peci_mask = 0x02, /* Actually reports PCH */
>
>
> From the little information we have, I suspect that this may be wrong.
> The chip is probably closer to 8771/8772. Please check if the code path
> executed if has_temp_old_peci() is true is executed correctly,
> and that the registers used in that code path report what is expected.
> Most likely FEAT_TEMP_OLD_PECI and old_peci_mask should not be set.
>
I think I'm getting a little confused here. Both IT8721 and IT8732
claim to use IT87_REG_TEMP_EXTRA bit 7 to enable PCH temperature
mapping to 0x2a. IT87_REG_TEMP_ENABLE bits 7-6 match IT8772, and
bits 5-0 match IT8721.
-Justin
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
