[PATCH][2.5] Support for W83627THF sensor chip (Was Re: [2.5]

[azarah@gentoo.org (Martin Schlemmer)]

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 03:50, Mark D. Studebaker wrote:
> If your patch is all that's required and it tests out well (have you tested it?)
> then sure, why not. It assumes that a w83627thf is exactly the same
> as a w83627hf. It's when the additional patches come in
> (if kind = w83627thf.....) then it's making a bad situation worse in
> my opinion.
> 

It is the same chip, except for fan control,etc, which I think is more
just for bios/board control, but not having (or being able to get) a
data sheet, I cannot verify.

> So my preference is to limit the additions to w83781d.
> 
> There's no plans to split the existing w83781d driver.
> We don't rename existing drivers because of CVS limitations and
> wanting to minimize changes for our users.
> 

Right, but what about 2.5 side ?  Will patches to do this in 2.5
be considered ?

> So I'd feel better about your patch after seeing some test results.
> And as I said before, you will get the best results by using
> the new 627hf driver, either after porting it yourself or
> hoping somebody else does.
> 

I will try to make the time, but not in the next week or so.

What kind of tests do you need ?

> mds
>  
> 
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 03:06, Mark D. Studebaker wrote:
> > 
> >>About a week ago I worked with
> >>  Matthias Hentges <matthias@hentges.net>
> >>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/20030617/5f75b72c/attachment.bin