* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
@ 2007-02-19 18:48 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-19 19:39 ` Thomas Garner
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2007-02-19 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:07:19 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> I have an ECS Geforce6100sm-m with an Nvidia mcp61s chipset. Using
> 2.6.20, I have support for k8temp cpu temperature monitoring, but
> would like to have regular motherboard vitals as well. Searching for
> mcp61 does not reveal anything particularly conclusive as to whether
> or not this chipset is supported. Is it at all supported, and, if so,
> what do I need to do to get it working?
Looking at:
http://www.lm-sensors.org/wiki/Devices
It is listed as possibly compatible with the earlier nVidia south
bridges, but this needs testing.
Can you please provide a dump of the PCI config space of your device?
lspci -xxx -s 00:01.1
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
2007-02-19 18:48 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2007-02-19 19:39 ` Thomas Garner
2007-02-19 21:21 ` Jean Delvare
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Garner @ 2007-02-19 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
I would be happy to do any testing for you to get this device into
sensors... Here's the output for you.
[root at ns ~]# lspci -xxx -s 00:01.1
00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP61 SMBus (rev a2)
00: de 10 eb 03 01 00 b0 00 a2 00 05 0c 00 00 80 00
10: 01 fc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
20: 01 1c 00 00 01 f4 00 00 00 00 00 00 19 10 02 26
30: 00 00 00 00 44 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0b 01 00 00
40: 19 10 02 26 01 00 02 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
60: 01 10 00 00 01 14 00 00 01 18 00 00 00 00 00 00
70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 fe fe 01 00 00 00
80: 00 10 fe fe 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
c0: d4 30 80 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
d0: 40 00 40 01 10 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
e0: 88 10 04 00 04 40 00 07 80 12 04 00 41 44 44 11
f0: 02 ff 1e bf 01 00 00 80 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
On 2/19/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:07:19 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> > I have an ECS Geforce6100sm-m with an Nvidia mcp61s chipset. Using
> > 2.6.20, I have support for k8temp cpu temperature monitoring, but
> > would like to have regular motherboard vitals as well. Searching for
> > mcp61 does not reveal anything particularly conclusive as to whether
> > or not this chipset is supported. Is it at all supported, and, if so,
> > what do I need to do to get it working?
>
> Looking at:
> http://www.lm-sensors.org/wiki/Devices
> It is listed as possibly compatible with the earlier nVidia south
> bridges, but this needs testing.
>
> Can you please provide a dump of the PCI config space of your device?
> lspci -xxx -s 00:01.1
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
2007-02-19 18:48 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-19 19:39 ` Thomas Garner
@ 2007-02-19 21:21 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-19 21:36 ` Thomas Garner
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2007-02-19 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:39:33 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> I would be happy to do any testing for you to get this device into
> sensors... Here's the output for you.
>
> [root at ns ~]# lspci -xxx -s 00:01.1
> 00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP61 SMBus (rev a2)
> 00: de 10 eb 03 01 00 b0 00 a2 00 05 0c 00 00 80 00
> 10: 01 fc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 20: 01 1c 00 00 01 f4 00 00 00 00 00 00 19 10 02 26
> 30: 00 00 00 00 44 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0b 01 00 00
> 40: 19 10 02 26 01 00 02 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 60: 01 10 00 00 01 14 00 00 01 18 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 fe fe 01 00 00 00
> 80: 00 10 fe fe 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> c0: d4 30 80 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> d0: 40 00 40 01 10 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> e0: 88 10 04 00 04 40 00 07 80 12 04 00 41 44 44 11
> f0: 02 ff 1e bf 01 00 00 80 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Hmm, it looks a bit different than the older models. Can you please
also provide the output of:
lspci -v -s 00:01.1
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 21:21 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2007-02-19 21:36 ` Thomas Garner
2007-02-20 8:02 ` Jean Delvare
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Garner @ 2007-02-19 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Sure.
[root at ns ~]# lspci -v -s 00:01.1
00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP61 SMBus (rev a2)
Subsystem: Elitegroup Computer Systems Unknown device 2602
Flags: 66MHz, fast devsel, IRQ 11
I/O ports at fc00 [sized]
I/O ports at 1c00 [sized]
I/O ports at f400 [sized]
Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
On 2/19/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:39:33 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> > I would be happy to do any testing for you to get this device into
> > sensors... Here's the output for you.
> >
> > [root at ns ~]# lspci -xxx -s 00:01.1
> > 00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP61 SMBus (rev a2)
> > 00: de 10 eb 03 01 00 b0 00 a2 00 05 0c 00 00 80 00
> > 10: 01 fc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 20: 01 1c 00 00 01 f4 00 00 00 00 00 00 19 10 02 26
> > 30: 00 00 00 00 44 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0b 01 00 00
> > 40: 19 10 02 26 01 00 02 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 50: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 60: 01 10 00 00 01 14 00 00 01 18 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 70: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 fe fe 01 00 00 00
> > 80: 00 10 fe fe 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > c0: d4 30 80 01 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > d0: 40 00 40 01 10 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > e0: 88 10 04 00 04 40 00 07 80 12 04 00 41 44 44 11
> > f0: 02 ff 1e bf 01 00 00 80 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>
> Hmm, it looks a bit different than the older models. Can you please
> also provide the output of:
> lspci -v -s 00:01.1
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 21:36 ` Thomas Garner
@ 2007-02-20 8:02 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-21 2:55 ` Thomas Garner
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2007-02-20 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Hi Thomas,
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:36:25 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> [root at ns ~]# lspci -v -s 00:01.1
> 00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP61 SMBus (rev a2)
> Subsystem: Elitegroup Computer Systems Unknown device 2602
> Flags: 66MHz, fast devsel, IRQ 11
> I/O ports at fc00 [sized]
> I/O ports at 1c00 [sized]
> I/O ports at f400 [sized]
> Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
Hmmm, OK. If the MCP61 is similar to the previous models, the two SMBus
controllers correspond to the 2nd and 3rd I/O port ranges. However I am
surprised because these used to always live back-to-back. In your case
the two addresses are completely different, which makes me suspect that
something is different.
Either way, if you want to try, we can instruct the i2c-nforce2 driver
to handle your chip as a supported one and see what happens. Here's the
procedure (as root):
modprobe i2c-nforce2
modprobe i2c-dev
echo "10DE 03EB" /sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id
(check the logs)
i2cdetect -l
(you should see the two nVidia SMBus listed)
i2cdetect 0
i2cdetect 1
(assuming the nVidia SMBus are bus numbers 0 and 1)
Please report your results. Beware that bad things might happen if it
happens that the MCP61 is not actually compatible with the older chips.
Hopefully nothing a reboot won't fix, though.
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-20 8:02 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2007-02-21 2:55 ` Thomas Garner
2007-02-21 17:39 ` Jean Delvare
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Garner @ 2007-02-21 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Nothing bad seems to have happened. Here are the results. Note that
I modified the echo to redirect to
/sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id, I assume that's what you
meant.
[root at ns ~]# modprobe i2c-nforce2
[root at ns ~]# modprobe i2c-dev
[root at ns ~]# lsmod | grep i2c
i2c_nforce2 5952 0
i2c_dev 7556 0
i2c_core 21056 2 i2c_nforce2,i2c_dev
[root at ns ~]# echo "10DE 03EB" > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id
[root at ns ~]# dmesg | tail
<snip>
i2c_adapter i2c-0: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x1c00
i2c_adapter i2c-1: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0xf400
[root at ns ~]# i2cdetect -l
i2c-1 smbus SMBus nForce2 adapter at f400
Non-I2C SMBus adapter
i2c-0 smbus SMBus nForce2 adapter at 1c00
Non-I2C SMBus adapter
[root at ns ~]# i2cdetect 0
WARNING! This program can confuse your I2C bus, cause data loss and worse!
I will probe file /dev/i2c-0.
I will probe address range 0x03-0x77.
Continue? [Y/n] y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
00: XX XX XX XX XX 08 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
10: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
20: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
30: XX 31 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
40: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
50: XX 51 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
60: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
70: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
[root at ns ~]# i2cdetect 1
WARNING! This program can confuse your I2C bus, cause data loss and worse!
I will probe file /dev/i2c-1.
I will probe address range 0x03-0x77.
Continue? [Y/n] y
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
00: XX XX XX XX XX 08 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
10: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
20: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
30: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
40: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
50: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
60: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
70: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
[root at ns ~]# ls /dev/i2c-*
/dev/i2c-0 /dev/i2c-1
> Hmmm, OK. If the MCP61 is similar to the previous models, the two SMBus
> controllers correspond to the 2nd and 3rd I/O port ranges. However I am
> surprised because these used to always live back-to-back. In your case
> the two addresses are completely different, which makes me suspect that
> something is different.
>
> Either way, if you want to try, we can instruct the i2c-nforce2 driver
> to handle your chip as a supported one and see what happens. Here's the
> procedure (as root):
>
> modprobe i2c-nforce2
> modprobe i2c-dev
> echo "10DE 03EB" /sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id
> (check the logs)
> i2cdetect -l
> (you should see the two nVidia SMBus listed)
> i2cdetect 0
> i2cdetect 1
> (assuming the nVidia SMBus are bus numbers 0 and 1)
>
> Please report your results. Beware that bad things might happen if it
> happens that the MCP61 is not actually compatible with the older chips.
> Hopefully nothing a reboot won't fix, though.
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-21 2:55 ` Thomas Garner
@ 2007-02-21 17:39 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-22 3:02 ` Thomas Garner
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2007-02-21 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:55:56 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> Nothing bad seems to have happened. Here are the results. Note that
> I modified the echo to redirect to
> /sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id, I assume that's what you
> meant.
Oops, yes, of course you're right.
> [root at ns ~]# modprobe i2c-nforce2
> [root at ns ~]# modprobe i2c-dev
> [root at ns ~]# lsmod | grep i2c
> i2c_nforce2 5952 0
> i2c_dev 7556 0
> i2c_core 21056 2 i2c_nforce2,i2c_dev
> [root at ns ~]# echo "10DE 03EB" > /sys/bus/pci/drivers/nForce2_smbus/new_id
> [root at ns ~]# dmesg | tail
> <snip>
> i2c_adapter i2c-0: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0x1c00
> i2c_adapter i2c-1: nForce2 SMBus adapter at 0xf400
> [root at ns ~]# i2cdetect -l
> i2c-1 smbus SMBus nForce2 adapter at f400
> Non-I2C SMBus adapter
> i2c-0 smbus SMBus nForce2 adapter at 1c00
> Non-I2C SMBus adapter
> [root at ns ~]# i2cdetect 0
> WARNING! This program can confuse your I2C bus, cause data loss and worse!
> I will probe file /dev/i2c-0.
> I will probe address range 0x03-0x77.
> Continue? [Y/n] y
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
> 00: XX XX XX XX XX 08 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 10: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 20: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 30: XX 31 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 40: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 50: XX 51 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 60: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 70: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> [root at ns ~]# i2cdetect 1
> WARNING! This program can confuse your I2C bus, cause data loss and worse!
> I will probe file /dev/i2c-1.
> I will probe address range 0x03-0x77.
> Continue? [Y/n] y
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
> 00: XX XX XX XX XX 08 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 10: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 20: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 30: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 40: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 50: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 60: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> 70: XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> [root at ns ~]# ls /dev/i2c-*
> /dev/i2c-0 /dev/i2c-1
So it appears to work OK. Thanks for testing and reporting, I'll
prepare and submit a patch adding support permanently for the MCP61 to
the i2c-nforce2 driver. I'll also include the MCP65, as I'd be very
surprised that the MCP61 and MCP65 are different in that respect.
That being said, there are no sensors on the SMBus, only one EEPROM. If
there are sensors on your system, they have to be somewhere else, maybe
in the Super-I/O chip. Did you try running a recent version of
sensors-detect already? What did it find?
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-21 17:39 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2007-02-22 3:02 ` Thomas Garner
2007-02-22 16:41 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-22 17:43 ` Thomas Garner
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Garner @ 2007-02-22 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
> That being said, there are no sensors on the SMBus, only one EEPROM. If
> there are sensors on your system, they have to be somewhere else, maybe
> in the Super-I/O chip. Did you try running a recent version of
> sensors-detect already? What did it find?
[root at ns ~]# dpkg -l lm-sensors
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercaseºd)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-=============-=============-==================================
ii lm-sensors 2.10.1-2 utilities to
read temperature/voltage/fan sensors
[root at ns ~]# sensors-detect
# sensors-detect revision 4171 (2006-09-24 03:37:01 -0700)
This program will help you determine which kernel modules you need
to load to use lm_sensors most effectively. It is generally safe
and recommended to accept the default answers to all questions,
unless you know what you're doing.
We can start with probing for (PCI) I2C or SMBus adapters.
Do you want to probe now? (YES/no): y
Probing for PCI bus adapters...
Found unknown SMBus adapter 10de:03eb at 0000:00:01.1.
Sorry, no known PCI bus adapters found.
We will now try to load each adapter module in turn.
If you have undetectable or unsupported adapters, you can have them
scanned by manually loading the modules before running this script.
We are now going to do the I2C/SMBus adapter probings. Some chips may
be double detected; we choose the one with the highest confidence
value in that case.
If you found that the adapter hung after probing a certain address,
you can specify that address to remain unprobed.
Next adapter: SMBus nForce2 adapter at f400
Do you want to scan it? (YES/no/selectively): y
Client found at address 0x08
Next adapter: SMBus nForce2 adapter at 1c00
Do you want to scan it? (YES/no/selectively): y
Client found at address 0x08
Client found at address 0x31
Client found at address 0x51
Probing for `Analog Devices ADM1033'... No
Probing for `Analog Devices ADM1034'... No
Probing for `SPD EEPROM'... Success!
(confidence 8, driver `eeprom')
Some chips are also accessible through the ISA I/O ports. We have to
write to arbitrary I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe though.
Yes, you do have ISA I/O ports even if you do not have any ISA slots!
Do you want to scan the ISA I/O ports? (YES/no): y
Probing for `National Semiconductor LM78' at 0x290... No
Probing for `National Semiconductor LM78-J' at 0x290... No
Probing for `National Semiconductor LM79' at 0x290... No
Probing for `Winbond W83781D' at 0x290... No
Probing for `Winbond W83782D' at 0x290... No
Probing for `Winbond W83627HF' at 0x290... No
Probing for `Silicon Integrated Systems SIS5595'... No
Probing for `VIA VT82C686 Integrated Sensors'... No
Probing for `VIA VT8231 Integrated Sensors'... No
Probing for `AMD K8 thermal sensors'... Success!
(confidence 9, driver `k8temp')
Probing for `IPMI BMC KCS' at 0xca0... No
Probing for `IPMI BMC SMIC' at 0xca8... No
Some Super I/O chips may also contain sensors. We have to write to
standard I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe.
Do you want to scan for Super I/O sensors? (YES/no): y
Probing for Super-I/O at 0x2e/0x2f
Trying family `ITE'... Yes
Found unknown chip with ID 0x8726
(logical device 4 has address 0x290, could be sensors)
Trying family `National Semiconductor'... No
Trying family `SMSC'... No
Trying family `VIA/Winbond/Fintek'... No
Probing for Super-I/O at 0x4e/0x4f
Trying family `ITE'... No
Trying family `National Semiconductor'... No
Trying family `SMSC'... No
Trying family `VIA/Winbond/Fintek'... No
Now follows a summary of the probes I have just done.
Just press ENTER to continue:
Driver `eeprom' (should be inserted):
Detects correctly:
* Bus `SMBus nForce2 adapter at 1c00'
Busdriver `i2c-nforce2', I2C address 0x51
Chip `SPD EEPROM' (confidence: 8)
EEPROMs are *NOT* sensors! They are data storage chips commonly
found on memory modules (SPD), in monitors (EDID), or in some
laptops, for example.
Driver `k8temp' (should be inserted):
Detects correctly:
* ISA bus, undetermined address (Busdriver `i2c-isa')
Chip `AMD K8 thermal sensors' (confidence: 9)
I will now generate the commands needed to load the required modules.
Just press ENTER to continue:
To make the sensors modules behave correctly, add these lines to
/etc/modules:
#----cut here----
# I2C adapter drivers
i2c-nforce2
# Chip drivers
eeprom
k8temp
#----cut here----
Do you want to add these lines to /etc/modules automatically? (yes/NO)
[root at ns ~]# lsmod | egrep "i2c-nforce2|eeprom|k8temp"
k8temp 5888 0
[root at ns ~]# modprobe i2c-nforce2
[root at ns ~]# modprobe eeprom
[root at ns ~]# lsmod | egrep "i2c-nforce2|eeprom|k8temp"
eeprom 7504 0
i2c_core 21056 3 eeprom,i2c_nforce2,i2c_dev
k8temp 5888 0
[root at ns ~]# sensors
k8temp-pci-00c3
Adapter: PCI adapter
Core0 Temp:
+29 C
Core1 Temp:
+28 C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-22 3:02 ` Thomas Garner
@ 2007-02-22 16:41 ` Jean Delvare
2007-02-22 17:43 ` Thomas Garner
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jean Delvare @ 2007-02-22 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:02:31 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> > That being said, there are no sensors on the SMBus, only one EEPROM. If
> > there are sensors on your system, they have to be somewhere else, maybe
> > in the Super-I/O chip. Did you try running a recent version of
> > sensors-detect already? What did it find?
>
> (...)
> [root at ns ~]# sensors-detect
> # sensors-detect revision 4171 (2006-09-24 03:37:01 -0700)
>
> This program will help you determine which kernel modules you need
> to load to use lm_sensors most effectively. It is generally safe
> and recommended to accept the default answers to all questions,
> unless you know what you're doing.
> (...)
> Some Super I/O chips may also contain sensors. We have to write to
> standard I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe.
> Do you want to scan for Super I/O sensors? (YES/no): y
> Probing for Super-I/O at 0x2e/0x2f
> Trying family `ITE'... Yes
> Found unknown chip with ID 0x8726
> (logical device 4 has address 0x290, could be sensors)
Looks like the latest Super-I/O from ITE, the IT8726F, which we do not
support yet. At first sight it appears to be very similar to the
IT8716F, which we do support since 2.6.18, so it should be possible to
add support to the it87 driver easily. There are some technical details
which are unclear in the datasheet though, so I'm waiting a bit before
going on.
Do you have the possibility to recompile your kernel and lm_sensors
with some patches applied?
--
Jean Delvare
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support
2007-02-19 7:07 [lm-sensors] mcp61 sensors support Thomas Garner
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-22 16:41 ` Jean Delvare
@ 2007-02-22 17:43 ` Thomas Garner
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Garner @ 2007-02-22 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lm-sensors
Yeah, I can recompile, no problem.
On 2/22/07, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:02:31 -0500, Thomas Garner wrote:
> > > That being said, there are no sensors on the SMBus, only one EEPROM. If
> > > there are sensors on your system, they have to be somewhere else, maybe
> > > in the Super-I/O chip. Did you try running a recent version of
> > > sensors-detect already? What did it find?
> >
> > (...)
> > [root at ns ~]# sensors-detect
> > # sensors-detect revision 4171 (2006-09-24 03:37:01 -0700)
> >
> > This program will help you determine which kernel modules you need
> > to load to use lm_sensors most effectively. It is generally safe
> > and recommended to accept the default answers to all questions,
> > unless you know what you're doing.
> > (...)
> > Some Super I/O chips may also contain sensors. We have to write to
> > standard I/O ports to probe them. This is usually safe.
> > Do you want to scan for Super I/O sensors? (YES/no): y
> > Probing for Super-I/O at 0x2e/0x2f
> > Trying family `ITE'... Yes
> > Found unknown chip with ID 0x8726
> > (logical device 4 has address 0x290, could be sensors)
>
> Looks like the latest Super-I/O from ITE, the IT8726F, which we do not
> support yet. At first sight it appears to be very similar to the
> IT8716F, which we do support since 2.6.18, so it should be possible to
> add support to the it87 driver easily. There are some technical details
> which are unclear in the datasheet though, so I'm waiting a bit before
> going on.
>
> Do you have the possibility to recompile your kernel and lm_sensors
> with some patches applied?
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread