Re: [PATCH v2] hwmon: (it87) Add support for IT8732F

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/05/2015 12:18 PM, Justin Maggard wrote:
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.


Me too ;-), but from your description it sounds like your definitions are
correct.

It is really annoying that ITE is so secretive about their chips.

Thanks,
Guenter


_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Hardware Monitoring]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]

  Powered by Linux