From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: azarah@gentoo.org (Martin Schlemmer) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 06:24:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH][2.5] Support for W83627THF sensor chip (Was Re: [2.5] Message-Id: <1055813650.7227.23.camel@nosferatu.lan> List-Id: References: <1055807044.7227.7.camel@nosferatu.lan> In-Reply-To: <1055807044.7227.7.camel@nosferatu.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 03:06, Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > About a week ago I worked with > Matthias Hentges > to determine the device ID for this chip, and he supplied a patch which > I worked into CVS, into the w83627hf driver and into sensors-detect. > It was checked in last week. > > This driver is designed for Super I/O chips and includes detection > and activation. It uses ISA accesses. > Ok, checked out CVS. > I would rather not keep adding to the w83781d cruft, especially > for Super I/O chips. Not only is the > driver quite unwieldy already, but people have had lots of trouble > with the Winbond Super I/O chips because they often aren't > initialzed by the bios so the w83781d driver can't find them. > ISA accesses are also much more reliable. > > Please test the w83627hf driver in CVS and give us some feedback. > Well, it is not yet ported to 2.5, and the state this box is in (NPTL, etc), I _cannot_ use a 2.4 kernel. I also do not know if I currently have the time to port it to 2.5. Finally, what is the plan .. split the w83781d into smaller drivers for each class of chip ? If so, don't you still need i2c support for some w836* chips? Won't then also be better to call the drivers w837xx.c and w836xx.c ? Regards, -- Martin Schlemmer -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20030617/4ebe9368/attachment.bin