From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Rickman Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:55:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Where are all the sensors? Message-Id: <4E143113.4060701@myamigos.us> List-Id: References: <4E0B52A6.1070402@yahoo.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4E0B52A6.1070402@yahoo.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On 7/6/2011 4:04 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Luca, > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:48:43 +0200, Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Jeff Rickman wrote: >>> Luca, would that modified F71882FG driver (from ~June last year) be >>> useful/helpful here? In my case it was a F71862FG chip where ACPI claimed >>> the ports but DSDT suggested something to you. I guess it really depends on >>> the DSDT code. BTW, I still use that modified driver on that Jetway NC92-330 >>> board and it still works fine even with Fedora Core 15. >> >> It was an ugly hack :) I modified the driver to access the hwmon chip >> using the methods exposed by the firmware instead of letting the >> driver touch the chip directly. Unfortunately the hack is very board >> specific... > > I still have to test this approach on a Jetway board of mine with a > Fintek F71805F chip. > > Why do you say this is ugly? Of course it is vendor specific (or even > board specific) but so is the asus_atk0110 driver. Wouldn't it be a > proper way to deal with the ACPI resource conflict at least on the > Jetway boards, and maybe others? If it works then I can't really see a > reason to not do it, can you? It seems preferable to > acpi_enforce_resources=lax people are using at the moment, at least. > If a "modified" F71805 driver appeared I would be happy to test it. I think my Jetway board (J7F4 series) is different from Jean's board. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors