Re: [lm-sensors] sensor-detect and non-compliant SMSC Super I/Os

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:54:50 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>  > All,
>  >
>  > I looked through a lot of SMSC datasheets the last couple of days with
>  > the goal to improve sensor-detect to correctly identify more SMSC
>  > Super I/Os. I noticed that some of the chips don't conform to the ISA
>  > PNP standard with the device ID register living at a different address
>  > (0x0d instead of 0x20). In order to correctly identify those chips, a
>  > somewhat ugly (and totally SMSC specific) hack would be necessary.
>  > Something like reading from both addresses and then using the value
>  > from 0x0d for some of the SMSC chips.
>  >
>  > I wonder how much value this adds given that none of these Super IOs
>  > have HW monitoring capabilities? The only benefit I can see is that
>  > the chip is correctly identified and we can flag it as not being a
>  > sensor and thus users won't bug us for adding support.
>  >
>  > Any thoughts, comments, ideas?
>  >
> 
> I think that if the hack isn't too gross, it would be good to also be able to 
> identify those chips.

Same for me, it depends on how the code looks like. If it's clean and
safe, no objection.

I am curious how you can tell between the two types of register
mappings? Is there a perfect solution, or do you have some heuristic?

-- 
Jean Delvare

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