[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of AMD family

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of AMD family

[Guenter Roeck]

Index: CHANGES
=================================--- CHANGES	(revision 5932)
+++ CHANGES	(working copy)
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
                         EMC1072, EMC1073, EMC1074, EMC1402, and EMC1424
                   Fixed address ranges checked for SMSC EMC1403 and EMC1404.
                   Fix detection of SPD EEPROM on DDR3 memory modules
+                  Add detection of AMD family 12h and 14h thermal sensors
 
 3.2.0 (2010-10-10)
   libsensors: Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 24
Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
=================================--- prog/detect/sensors-detect	(revision 5932)
+++ prog/detect/sensors-detect	(working copy)
@@ -2128,6 +2128,10 @@
 		driver => "k10temp",
 		detect => \&fam11h_pci_detect,
 	}, {
+		name => "AMD Family 12h and 14h thermal sensors",
+		driver => "k10temp",
+		detect => \&fam12h_14h_pci_detect,
+	}, {
 		name => "Intel digital thermal sensor",
 		driver => "coretemp",
 		detect => \&coretemp_detect,
@@ -6028,6 +6032,12 @@
 	return 9;
 }
 
+sub fam12h_14h_pci_detect
+{
+	return unless exists $pci_list{'1022:1703'};
+	return 9;
+}
+
 sub intel_amb_detect
 {
 	if ((exists $pci_list{'8086:25f0'}) ||	# Intel 5000

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of AMD

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:56:40 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Index: CHANGES
> =================================> --- CHANGES	(revision 5932)
> +++ CHANGES	(working copy)
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>                          EMC1072, EMC1073, EMC1074, EMC1402, and EMC1424
>                    Fixed address ranges checked for SMSC EMC1403 and EMC1404.
>                    Fix detection of SPD EEPROM on DDR3 memory modules
> +                  Add detection of AMD family 12h and 14h thermal sensors
>  
>  3.2.0 (2010-10-10)
>    libsensors: Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 24
> Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
> =================================> --- prog/detect/sensors-detect	(revision 5932)
> +++ prog/detect/sensors-detect	(working copy)
> @@ -2128,6 +2128,10 @@
>  		driver => "k10temp",
>  		detect => \&fam11h_pci_detect,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "AMD Family 12h and 14h thermal sensors",
> +		driver => "k10temp",
> +		detect => \&fam12h_14h_pci_detect,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "Intel digital thermal sensor",
>  		driver => "coretemp",
>  		detect => \&coretemp_detect,
> @@ -6028,6 +6032,12 @@
>  	return 9;
>  }
>  
> +sub fam12h_14h_pci_detect
> +{
> +	return unless exists $pci_list{'1022:1703'};
> +	return 9;
> +}
> +
>  sub intel_amb_detect
>  {
>  	if ((exists $pci_list{'8086:25f0'}) ||	# Intel 5000
> 

The code looks good and the ID is in line with Clemens' patch. Please
commit and update wiki/Devices accordingly [1].

That being said, I'm a little curious about a couple things. Why
PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CNB17H_F3 and PCI device ID 0x1703 if the supported
CPUs are family 12h and 14h (and not 17h)?

What about PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_NB_MISC (PCI device ID 0x1603)? No
thermal sensors here?

How comes that PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_NB_MISC is listed in
arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c but PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CNB17H_F3 is not? I
suspect a couple more patches will be needed in the future to get it
all to work.

[1] FYI, I have applied Clemens' patch to "my" standalone k10temp
driver.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of AMD

[Clemens Ladisch]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> [...]
> That being said, I'm a little curious about a couple things. Why
> PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CNB17H_F3 and PCI device ID 0x1703 if the supported
> CPUs are family 12h and 14h (and not 17h)?

This is what AMD calls it: <http://git.kernel.org/linus/ca86828ccd31>.

There is no fixed relation between PCI IDs and family numbers.  I'd
guess this symbol is named differently because there is no single
family; "CNB" probably stands for "common northbridge".

> What about PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_NB_MISC (PCI device ID 0x1603)? No
> thermal sensors here?

If I had to guess, I'd assume that it uses the same sensor.  However,
AMD hasn't yet published documentation for the Bulldozer family.

> How comes that PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_15H_NB_MISC is listed in
> arch/x86/kernel/amd_nb.c but PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CNB17H_F3 is not?

The file name seems to be misleading; that code actually manages only
the L3 cache and the GART, and family 12h/14h CPUs have neither.


Regards,
Clemens

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of AMD

[Guenter Roeck]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 07:09:45AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:56:40 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Index: CHANGES
> > =================================> > --- CHANGES	(revision 5932)
> > +++ CHANGES	(working copy)
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> >                          EMC1072, EMC1073, EMC1074, EMC1402, and EMC1424
> >                    Fixed address ranges checked for SMSC EMC1403 and EMC1404.
> >                    Fix detection of SPD EEPROM on DDR3 memory modules
> > +                  Add detection of AMD family 12h and 14h thermal sensors
> >  
> >  3.2.0 (2010-10-10)
> >    libsensors: Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 24
> > Index: prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > =================================> > --- prog/detect/sensors-detect	(revision 5932)
> > +++ prog/detect/sensors-detect	(working copy)
> > @@ -2128,6 +2128,10 @@
> >  		driver => "k10temp",
> >  		detect => \&fam11h_pci_detect,
> >  	}, {
> > +		name => "AMD Family 12h and 14h thermal sensors",
> > +		driver => "k10temp",
> > +		detect => \&fam12h_14h_pci_detect,
> > +	}, {
> >  		name => "Intel digital thermal sensor",
> >  		driver => "coretemp",
> >  		detect => \&coretemp_detect,
> > @@ -6028,6 +6032,12 @@
> >  	return 9;
> >  }
> >  
> > +sub fam12h_14h_pci_detect
> > +{
> > +	return unless exists $pci_list{'1022:1703'};
> > +	return 9;
> > +}
> > +
> >  sub intel_amb_detect
> >  {
> >  	if ((exists $pci_list{'8086:25f0'}) ||	# Intel 5000
> > 
> 
> The code looks good and the ID is in line with Clemens' patch. Please
> commit and update wiki/Devices accordingly [1].
> 
> That being said, I'm a little curious about a couple things. Why
> PCI_DEVICE_ID_AMD_CNB17H_F3 and PCI device ID 0x1703 if the supported
> CPUs are family 12h and 14h (and not 17h)?
> 
I don't know. I wondered about it too, so I looked up the device ID
(http://pci-ids.ucw.cz/read/PC/1022) and confirmed that it applies
to family 12h/14h. Per commit log this is the Northbridge on the
respective CPUs.

0x1603 is for AMD CPU family 15h, as the define indicates. I have no idea
about its capabilities, nor how to find out.

Guenter

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of MAX6642

[Per Dalén]

This patch adds detection of MAX6642 to sensors-detect.

Signed-off-by: Per Dalen <per.dalen@appeartv.com>
---

--- prog/detect/sensors-detect  (revision 5975)
+++ prog/detect/sensors-detect  (working copy)
@@ -848,6 +848,11 @@
                i2c_addrs => [0x2c, 0x2e, 0x2f],
                i2c_detect => sub { max6639_detect(@_); },
        }, {
+               name => "Maxim MAX6642",
+               driver => "max6642",
+               i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4a, 0x4b, 0x4c, 0x4d, 0x4e,
0x4f],
+               i2c_detect => sub { max6642_detect(@_); },
+       }, {
                name => "Maxim MAX6655/MAX6656",
                driver => "max6655",
                i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
@@ -5779,6 +5784,36 @@
        return 6;
 }

+# Chip to detect: MAX6642
+# Registers used:
+#   0x02: Status register
+#   0x03: Configuration register
+#   0xfe: Manufacturer ID
+#   0x04,0x06,0xff: No registers
+# We use the 0x04,0x06 and 0xff addresses (unused) to improve the
reliability.
+# These are not real registers and will always return the last returned
value.
+# This isn't documented.
+sub max6642_detect
+{
+       my ($file, $addr) = @_;
+       my ($man_id, $conf, $status);
+
+       $man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xfe, NO_CACHE);
+       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x04, NO_CACHE) !$man_id;
+       $status = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02, NO_CACHE);
+       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x06, NO_CACHE) !$status;
+       $conf = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x03, NO_CACHE);
+       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xff, NO_CACHE) != $conf;
+
+       return unless $man_id = 0x4d;  # Maxim
+       # Bit 5, 3, 1 and 0 should be zero
+       return unless ($status & 0x2b) = 0x00;
+       # The 4 lower bits should be zero
+       return unless ($conf & 0x0f) = 0x00;
+
+       return 6;
+}
+
 sub max6655_detect
 {
        my ($file, $addr) = @_;

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of MAX6642

[Guenter Roeck]

Hi Per,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:01PM -0400, Per Dalén wrote:
> This patch adds detection of MAX6642 to sensors-detect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Per Dalen <per.dalen@appeartv.com>
> ---
> 
> --- prog/detect/sensors-detect  (revision 5975)
> +++ prog/detect/sensors-detect  (working copy)
> @@ -848,6 +848,11 @@
>                 i2c_addrs => [0x2c, 0x2e, 0x2f],
>                 i2c_detect => sub { max6639_detect(@_); },
>         }, {
> +               name => "Maxim MAX6642",
> +               driver => "max6642",
> +               i2c_addrs => [0x48, 0x49, 0x4a, 0x4b, 0x4c, 0x4d, 0x4e,
> 0x4f],
> +               i2c_detect => sub { max6642_detect(@_); },
> +       }, {
>                 name => "Maxim MAX6655/MAX6656",
>                 driver => "max6655",
>                 i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
> @@ -5779,6 +5784,36 @@
>         return 6;
>  }
> 
> +# Chip to detect: MAX6642
> +# Registers used:
> +#   0x02: Status register
> +#   0x03: Configuration register
> +#   0xfe: Manufacturer ID
> +#   0x04,0x06,0xff: No registers
> +# We use the 0x04,0x06 and 0xff addresses (unused) to improve the
> reliability.
> +# These are not real registers and will always return the last returned
> value.
> +# This isn't documented.
> +sub max6642_detect
> +{
> +       my ($file, $addr) = @_;
> +       my ($man_id, $conf, $status);
> +
> +       $man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xfe, NO_CACHE);

You might want to more the check for $man_id = 0x4d to here, 
to avoid reading the other registers if you don't have to.

> +       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x04, NO_CACHE) !> $man_id;

I think it would be better to read the other non-existing registers here, 
because if those are real registers they are more unlikely to return 0x4d
than to return the same value as the status and configuration registers.

Something like

	$man_id = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xfe, NO_CACHE);
	return unless $man_id = 0x4d;  # Maxim
	return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xff, NO_CACHE) != $man_id;
	return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x04, NO_CACHE) != $man_id;
	return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x06, NO_CACHE) != $man_id;

	...

Thanks,
Guenter

> +       $status = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02, NO_CACHE);
> +       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x06, NO_CACHE) !> $status;
> +       $conf = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x03, NO_CACHE);
> +       return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0xff, NO_CACHE) != $conf;
> +
> +       return unless $man_id = 0x4d;  # Maxim
> +       # Bit 5, 3, 1 and 0 should be zero
> +       return unless ($status & 0x2b) = 0x00;
> +       # The 4 lower bits should be zero
> +       return unless ($conf & 0x0f) = 0x00;
> +
> +       return 6;
> +}
> +
>  sub max6655_detect
>  {
>         my ($file, $addr) = @_;

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of G781 and G781-1

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
untested

 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   15 ++++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index c776e84..f5fdb57 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Fix loading of the cpuid module
                   Make LM73 detection less problematic
                   Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96163
+                  Add detection of G781 and G781-1
 
 3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
   isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 31a4619..e0db4a8 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -818,6 +818,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
 		i2c_detect => sub { adm1021_detect(@_, 1); },
 	}, {
+		name => "Global Mixed-mode Technology G781/G781-1",
+		driver => "lm90",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x4c, 0x4d],
+		i2c_detect => sub { lm90_detect(@_, 15); },
+	}, {
 		name => "Maxim MAX1617",
 		driver => "adm1021",
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
@@ -4364,7 +4369,8 @@ sub max6680_95_detect
 #		  6 = MAX6646/MAX6647/MAX6648/MAX6649/MAX6692,
 #		  8 = W83L771W/G, 9 = TMP401, 10 = TMP411,
 #		  11 = W83L771AWG/ASG, 12 = MAX6690,
-#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004
+#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004,
+#		  15 = GMT G781/G781-1
 # Registers used:
 #   0x03: Configuration
 #   0x04: Conversion rate
@@ -4476,6 +4482,13 @@ sub lm90_detect
 		return if $mid != 0xa1;		# NXP Semiconductor/Philips
 		return 6 if $cid = 0x00;	# SA56004
 	}
+	if ($chip = 15) {
+		return if ($conf & 0x3f) != 0;
+		return if $rate > 0x08;
+		return if $mid != 0x47;		# GMT
+		return 8 if ($addr = 0x4c && $cid = 0x01);	# G781
+		return 8 if ($addr = 0x4d && $cid = 0x03);	# G781-1
+	}
 	return;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.5.4


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of G781 and G781-1

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:31:26 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> untested
> 
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   15 ++++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index c776e84..f5fdb57 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Fix loading of the cpuid module
>                    Make LM73 detection less problematic
>                    Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96163
> +                  Add detection of G781 and G781-1
>  
>  3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
>    isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 31a4619..e0db4a8 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -818,6 +818,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
>  		i2c_detect => sub { adm1021_detect(@_, 1); },
>  	}, {
> +		name => "Global Mixed-mode Technology G781/G781-1",

The -1 suffix is essentially a top marking variation, we usually don't
document these in sensors-detect (at least we didn't for the LM89-1,
LM99-1, ADM1021-1, etc.)

> +		driver => "lm90",
> +		i2c_addrs => [0x4c, 0x4d],
> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm90_detect(@_, 15); },
> +	}, {
>  		name => "Maxim MAX1617",
>  		driver => "adm1021",
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
> @@ -4364,7 +4369,8 @@ sub max6680_95_detect
>  #		  6 = MAX6646/MAX6647/MAX6648/MAX6649/MAX6692,
>  #		  8 = W83L771W/G, 9 = TMP401, 10 = TMP411,
>  #		  11 = W83L771AWG/ASG, 12 = MAX6690,
> -#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004
> +#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004,
> +#		  15 = GMT G781/G781-1

FWIW we don't mention the vendor name for other chips.

>  # Registers used:
>  #   0x03: Configuration
>  #   0x04: Conversion rate
> @@ -4476,6 +4482,13 @@ sub lm90_detect
>  		return if $mid != 0xa1;		# NXP Semiconductor/Philips
>  		return 6 if $cid = 0x00;	# SA56004
>  	}
> +	if ($chip = 15) {
> +		return if ($conf & 0x3f) != 0;
> +		return if $rate > 0x08;
> +		return if $mid != 0x47;		# GMT
> +		return 8 if ($addr = 0x4c && $cid = 0x01);	# G781
> +		return 8 if ($addr = 0x4d && $cid = 0x03);	# G781-1
> +	}

From Mike's dumps it turns out that both variants have device ID 0x01.

>  	return;
>  }
>  

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of G781

[Guenter Roeck]

Cc: Mike Gorchak <lestat@i.com.ua>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
v2:
- Drop reference to G781-1; we don't usually mention chip variants
- Accept device ID 0x01 on address 0x4c as well as 0x4d
- Do not accept device ID 0x03, as its existence is not confirmed

 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   14 +++++++++++++-
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index c776e84..c41f489 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Fix loading of the cpuid module
                   Make LM73 detection less problematic
                   Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96163
+                  Add detection of GMT G781
 
 3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
   isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 31a4619..60192b4 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -818,6 +818,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
 		i2c_detect => sub { adm1021_detect(@_, 1); },
 	}, {
+		name => "Global Mixed-mode Technology G781",
+		driver => "lm90",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x4c, 0x4d],
+		i2c_detect => sub { lm90_detect(@_, 15); },
+	}, {
 		name => "Maxim MAX1617",
 		driver => "adm1021",
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
@@ -4364,7 +4369,8 @@ sub max6680_95_detect
 #		  6 = MAX6646/MAX6647/MAX6648/MAX6649/MAX6692,
 #		  8 = W83L771W/G, 9 = TMP401, 10 = TMP411,
 #		  11 = W83L771AWG/ASG, 12 = MAX6690,
-#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004
+#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004,
+#		  15 = G781
 # Registers used:
 #   0x03: Configuration
 #   0x04: Conversion rate
@@ -4476,6 +4482,12 @@ sub lm90_detect
 		return if $mid != 0xa1;		# NXP Semiconductor/Philips
 		return 6 if $cid = 0x00;	# SA56004
 	}
+	if ($chip = 15) {
+		return if ($conf & 0x3f) != 0;
+		return if $rate > 0x08;
+		return if $mid != 0x47;		# GMT
+		return 8 if $cid = 0x01;	# G781
+	}
 	return;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.5.4


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of G781

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:35:22 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Cc: Mike Gorchak <lestat@i.com.ua>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> v2:
> - Drop reference to G781-1; we don't usually mention chip variants
> - Accept device ID 0x01 on address 0x4c as well as 0x4d
> - Do not accept device ID 0x03, as its existence is not confirmed
> 
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   14 +++++++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index c776e84..c41f489 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Fix loading of the cpuid module
>                    Make LM73 detection less problematic
>                    Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96163
> +                  Add detection of GMT G781
>  
>  3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
>    isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 31a4619..60192b4 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -818,6 +818,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
>  		i2c_detect => sub { adm1021_detect(@_, 1); },
>  	}, {
> +		name => "Global Mixed-mode Technology G781",
> +		driver => "lm90",
> +		i2c_addrs => [0x4c, 0x4d],
> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm90_detect(@_, 15); },
> +	}, {
>  		name => "Maxim MAX1617",
>  		driver => "adm1021",
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1a, 0x29..0x2b, 0x4c..0x4e],
> @@ -4364,7 +4369,8 @@ sub max6680_95_detect
>  #		  6 = MAX6646/MAX6647/MAX6648/MAX6649/MAX6692,
>  #		  8 = W83L771W/G, 9 = TMP401, 10 = TMP411,
>  #		  11 = W83L771AWG/ASG, 12 = MAX6690,
> -#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004
> +#		  13 = ADT7461A/NCT1008, 14 = SA56004,
> +#		  15 = G781
>  # Registers used:
>  #   0x03: Configuration
>  #   0x04: Conversion rate
> @@ -4476,6 +4482,12 @@ sub lm90_detect
>  		return if $mid != 0xa1;		# NXP Semiconductor/Philips
>  		return 6 if $cid = 0x00;	# SA56004
>  	}
> +	if ($chip = 15) {
> +		return if ($conf & 0x3f) != 0;
> +		return if $rate > 0x08;
> +		return if $mid != 0x47;		# GMT
> +		return 8 if $cid = 0x01;	# G781
> +	}
>  	return;
>  }
>  

Looks very good now, please commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Jean Delvare]

Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
completely different.
---
Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
sensors-detect is available at:
http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect

 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

--- lm-sensors.orig/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-01-25 18:10:59.000000000 +0100
+++ lm-sensors/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-01-28 19:32:17.215343009 +0100
@@ -540,7 +540,12 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
 		name => "National Semiconductor LM80",
 		driver => "lm80",
 		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
-		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_); },
+		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 0); },
+	}, {
+		name => "National Semiconductor LM96080",
+		driver => "lm80",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
+		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
 	}, {
 		name => "National Semiconductor LM85",
 		driver => "lm85",
@@ -4259,11 +4264,15 @@ sub ds1621_detect
 	return ($slope = 0x10 && $counter <= $slope) ? 3 : 2;
 }
 
+# Chip to detect: 0 = LM80, 1 = LM96080
 # Registers used:
 #   0x00: Configuration register
 #   0x02: Interrupt state register
-#   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers
-# This one is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
+#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080 only)
+#   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers (LM80 only)
+#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080 only)
+#   0x3f: Steppind/die revision ID register (LM96080 only)
+# The LM80 is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
 # registers. So we have to use some tricks:
 #   - 6-bit addressing, so limits readings modulo 0x40 should be unchanged
 #   - positive temperature limits
@@ -4276,44 +4285,51 @@ sub ds1621_detect
 # to loose comparisons did not change the score.
 sub lm80_detect
 {
-	my ($file, $addr) = @_;
+	my ($file, $addr, $chip) = @_;
 	my ($i, $reg);
 
 	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x00) & 0x80) != 0;
 	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
 
-	for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
-		$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
-		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
-		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x80) != $reg;
-		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0xc0) != $reg;
-	}
+	if ($chip = 0) {
+		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
+			$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
+			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
+			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x80) != $reg;
+			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0xc0) != $reg;
+		}
 
-	# Refine a bit by checking whether limits are in the correct order
-	# (min<max for voltages, hyst<max for temperature). Since it is still
-	# possible that the chip is an LM80 with limits not properly set,
-	# a few "errors" are tolerated.
-	my $confidence = 0;
-	for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3a; $i++) {
+		# Refine a bit by checking whether limits are in the correct order
+		# (min<max for voltages, hyst<max for temperature). Since it is still
+		# possible that the chip is an LM80 with limits not properly set,
+		# a few "errors" are tolerated.
+		my $confidence = 0;
+		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3a; $i++) {
+			$confidence++
+				if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i) < i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+1);
+		}
+		# hot temp<OS temp
 		$confidence++
-			if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i) < i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+1);
-	}
-	# hot temp<OS temp
-	$confidence++
-		if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x38) < i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3a);
+			if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x38) < i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3a);
 
-	# Negative temperature limits are unlikely.
-	for ($i = 0x3a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
-		$confidence++ if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i) & 0x80) = 0;
-	}
+		# Negative temperature limits are unlikely.
+		for ($i = 0x3a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
+			$confidence++ if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i) & 0x80) = 0;
+		}
 
-	# $confidence is between 0 and 14
-	$confidence = ($confidence >> 1) - 4;
-	# $confidence is now between -4 and 3
+		# $confidence is between 0 and 14
+		$confidence = ($confidence >> 1) - 4;
+		# $confidence is now between -4 and 3
 
-	return unless $confidence > 0;
+		return unless $confidence > 0;
+		return $confidence;
+	} elsif ($chip = 1) {
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
+		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
+		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x08;
 
-	return $confidence;
+		return 6;
+	}
 }
 
 # Registers used:


-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Guenter Roeck]

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> completely different.
> ---
> Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> sensors-detect is available at:
> http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
> 
Looks good. Should we do the same for drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?

Thanks,
Guenter

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Jean Delvare]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:23:53 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> > completely different.
> > ---
> > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> > sensors-detect is available at:
> > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
>
> Looks good. Should we do the same for drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?

I think so, yes. The LM96080 is different enough to have its own chip
name IMHO. The detection in the driver worked for Frans by chance
because the limit registers are all set to 0, but in the general case
it would fail.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 600 bytes --]

2012/1/28 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>

> Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> completely different.
> ---
> Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> sensors-detect is available at:
> http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
>
> I'll try to give it a try early next week (at work where the hardware is).
Might be it ends up being forgotten as I'm quite busy closing all odds and
ends for the product that has this sensor.
If so, feel free to remind me.

Frans

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 947 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Guenter Roeck]

On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:04 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:23:53 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> > > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> > > completely different.
> > > ---
> > > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> > > sensors-detect is available at:
> > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
> >
> > Looks good. Should we do the same for drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?
> 
> I think so, yes. The LM96080 is different enough to have its own chip
> name IMHO. The detection in the driver worked for Frans by chance
> because the limit registers are all set to 0, but in the general case
> it would fail.
> 
You or me or Frans ? Any takers ?

Thanks,
Guenter



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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 13:15 -0500, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 
> 
> 2012/1/30 Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com>
>         On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:04 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
>         > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:23:53 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>         > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare
>         wrote:
>         > > > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas
>         Instruments)
>         > > > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but
>         detection is
>         > > > completely different.
>         > > > ---
>         > > > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version
>         of
>         > > > sensors-detect is available at:
>         > > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
>         > >
>         > > Looks good. Should we do the same for
>         drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?
>         >
>         > I think so, yes. The LM96080 is different enough to have its
>         own chip
>         > name IMHO. The detection in the driver worked for Frans by
>         chance
>         > because the limit registers are all set to 0, but in the
>         general case
>         > it would fail.
>         >
>         
>         You or me or Frans ? Any takers ?
>         
> I can test the sensors-detect (actually remembered it when it was
> about time to go home).
> Wrt the lm80.c changes: not too sure what to do here (and actually I'm
> somewhat time-constrained at the moment)
> 
> Best regards, Frans.
> 
> PS: I probably need a prog to detect a single i2c chip and give a
> return code 1 if the chip is detected and 0 otherwise.
> Afaik something like this does not exist. Right?
> If not the idea is to make a small prog i2ctest bus chip (probably
> inspired by i2cdetect) that does what I need.
> Does this sound like a good plan?

Not that complicated. All we need to do is to add the detection code to
lm80.c, into its _detect function. No problem, I can do that unless Jean
has some spare time. Since Linus did not accept the changes into 3.3,
we'll have some time anyway until the 3.4 commit window opens.

Thanks,
Guenter




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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:03:59 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:04 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:23:53 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> > > > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> > > > completely different.
> > > > ---
> > > > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> > > > sensors-detect is available at:
> > > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
> > >
> > > Looks good. Should we do the same for drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?
> > 
> > I think so, yes. The LM96080 is different enough to have its own chip
> > name IMHO. The detection in the driver worked for Frans by chance
> > because the limit registers are all set to 0, but in the general case
> > it would fail.
>
> You or me or Frans ? Any takers ?

I'll do it, no problem. It's only a matter of getting to it, as I had a
busy day.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 14:49 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:03:59 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:04 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:23:53 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 01:37:56PM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> > > > > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> > > > > completely different.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> > > > > sensors-detect is available at:
> > > > > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
> > > >
> > > > Looks good. Should we do the same for drivers/hwmon/lm80.c ?
> > > 
> > > I think so, yes. The LM96080 is different enough to have its own chip
> > > name IMHO. The detection in the driver worked for Frans by chance
> > > because the limit registers are all set to 0, but in the general case
> > > it would fail.
> >
> > You or me or Frans ? Any takers ?
> 
> I'll do it, no problem. It's only a matter of getting to it, as I had a
> busy day.
> 
Sounds good...

Thanks,
Guenter



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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

2012/1/28 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>

> Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> completely different.
> ---
> Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> sensors-detect is available at:
> http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
>

Jean, all,

I wanted to give this a stab but then noticed this was a perl script, and
the board on which the LM96080 lives is a small embedded system that does
not have perl, so unfortunately I cannot test it.

Sorry! Frans

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 940 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of LM96080

[Jean Delvare]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:37:41 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2012/1/28 Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
> 
> > Add detection of the National Semiconductor (now Texas Instruments)
> > LM96080. It is functionally compatible with the LM80 but detection is
> > completely different.
> > ---
> > Frans, if you want to test this, a pre-patched version of
> > sensors-detect is available at:
> > http://khali.linux-fr.org/devel/misc/sensors-detect
> >
> 
> Jean, all,
> 
> I wanted to give this a stab but then noticed this was a perl script, and
> the board on which the LM96080 lives is a small embedded system that does
> not have perl, so unfortunately I cannot test it.
> 
> Sorry! Frans

No problem. I've tested on the dump you sent to me, and it works OK, so
let's just claim this is good enough.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ITE IT8510E, IT8511E, IT8513E, and IT8518E

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
Trying again, this time more in line with detection of other IT85xx chips.
IT8510 and IT8512 datasheets suggest that there is no special sequence
to enable superio acccess, so let's just assume that this applies to all chips
from the same series.

 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index 10e62f5..8981e69 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96080
                   Add detection of ITE IT8771E
                   Add detection of ITE IT8781F, IT8782F and IT8783F
+                  Add detection of ITE IT8510E/TE/G, IT8511E/TE/G, IT8513E/F/G, and IT8518E
 
 3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
   isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index bffd5c3..93621ad 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -1595,15 +1595,35 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x14,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8510E/TE/G Super IO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0x8510,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
+	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8511E/TE/G Super IO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0x8511,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
+	}, {
 		name => "ITE IT8512E/F/G Super IO",
 		driver => "to-be-written",
 		devid => 0x8512,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
 	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8513E/F/G Super IO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0x8513,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
+	}, {
 		name => "ITE IT8516E/F/G Super IO",
 		driver => "to-be-written",
 		devid => 0x8516,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
+	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8518E Super IO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0x8518,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
 	}
 );
 
-- 
1.7.5.4


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ITE IT8510E, IT8511E, IT8513E, and IT8518E

[Jean Delvare]

On Sun,  4 Mar 2012 07:59:04 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
> Trying again, this time more in line with detection of other IT85xx chips.
> IT8510 and IT8512 datasheets suggest that there is no special sequence
> to enable superio acccess, so let's just assume that this applies to all chips
> from the same series.
> 
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index 10e62f5..8981e69 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Add detection of National Semiconductor LM96080
>                    Add detection of ITE IT8771E
>                    Add detection of ITE IT8781F, IT8782F and IT8783F
> +                  Add detection of ITE IT8510E/TE/G, IT8511E/TE/G, IT8513E/F/G, and IT8518E
>  
>  3.3.1 (2011-07-21)
>    isadump: Add support for word (16-bit) and long (32-bit) reads
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index bffd5c3..93621ad 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -1595,15 +1595,35 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		logdev => 0x14,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8510E/TE/G Super IO",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",
> +		devid => 0x8510,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
> +	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8511E/TE/G Super IO",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",
> +		devid => 0x8511,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "ITE IT8512E/F/G Super IO",
>  		driver => "to-be-written",
>  		devid => 0x8512,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8513E/F/G Super IO",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",
> +		devid => 0x8513,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "ITE IT8516E/F/G Super IO",
>  		driver => "to-be-written",
>  		devid => 0x8516,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
> +	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8518E Super IO",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",
> +		devid => 0x8518,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN,
>  	}
>  );
>  

No objection, just go ahead and commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000

[Jean Delvare]

Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000.

---
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- lm-sensors.orig/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-02 08:53:12.000000000 +0100
+++ lm-sensors/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-05 13:58:35.549784178 +0100
@@ -1350,6 +1350,16 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
 		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 10); },
 	}, {
+		name => "ST STTS2002",
+		driver => "jc42",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
+		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 11); },
+	}, {
+		name => "ST STTS3000",
+		driver => "jc42",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
+		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 12); },
+	}, {
 		name => "NXP SE97/SE97B",
 		driver => "jc42",
 		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
@@ -5965,7 +5975,7 @@ sub max6655_detect
 # Chip to detect: 0 = STTS424, 1 = SE97/SE97B, 2 = SE98, 3 = ADT7408,
 #                 4 = TS3000/TSE2002, 5 = MAX6604, 6 = MCP98242,
 #                 7 = MCP98243, 8 = MCP9843, 9 = CAT6095 / CAT34TS02,
-#                 10 = STTS424E
+#                 10 = STTS424E, 11 = STTS2002, 12 = STTS3000
 # Registers used:
 #   0x00: Capabilities
 #   0x01: Configuration
@@ -6022,6 +6032,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
 	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
 		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
 		return unless $devid = 0x00;		# STTS424E02
+	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
+		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
+		return unless $devid = 0x03;		# STTS2002
+	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
+		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
+		return unless $devid = 0x02;		# STTS3000
 	}
 
 	# Now, do it all again with words. Note that we get
@@ -6067,6 +6083,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
 	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
 		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
 		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0000; # STTS424E02
+	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
+		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
+		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0003; # STTS2002
+	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
+		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
+		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0002; # STTS3000
 	}
 
 	return 5;


-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 08:29 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000.
> 
> ---
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- lm-sensors.orig/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-02 08:53:12.000000000 +0100
> +++ lm-sensors/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-05 13:58:35.549784178 +0100
> @@ -1350,6 +1350,16 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
>  		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 10); },
>  	}, {
> +		name => "ST STTS2002",
> +		driver => "jc42",
> +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 11); },
> +	}, {
> +		name => "ST STTS3000",
> +		driver => "jc42",
> +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 12); },
> +	}, {
>  		name => "NXP SE97/SE97B",
>  		driver => "jc42",
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> @@ -5965,7 +5975,7 @@ sub max6655_detect
>  # Chip to detect: 0 = STTS424, 1 = SE97/SE97B, 2 = SE98, 3 = ADT7408,
>  #                 4 = TS3000/TSE2002, 5 = MAX6604, 6 = MCP98242,
>  #                 7 = MCP98243, 8 = MCP9843, 9 = CAT6095 / CAT34TS02,
> -#                 10 = STTS424E
> +#                 10 = STTS424E, 11 = STTS2002, 12 = STTS3000
>  # Registers used:
>  #   0x00: Capabilities
>  #   0x01: Configuration
> @@ -6022,6 +6032,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
>  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
>  		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
>  		return unless $devid = 0x00;		# STTS424E02
> +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> +		return unless $devid = 0x03;		# STTS2002
> +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> +		return unless $devid = 0x02;		# STTS3000
>  	}
>  
>  	# Now, do it all again with words. Note that we get
> @@ -6067,6 +6083,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
>  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
>  		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
>  		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0000; # STTS424E02
> +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0003; # STTS2002
> +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0002; # STTS3000
>  	}

Hi Jean,

you are masking the chip IDs against 0xfeff. That made sense for
STTS424E02, which has two variants. Any special reason for doing it for
STTS2002 and STTS3000 as well ? If so, shouldn't we do the same for the
jc42 driver (or, alternatively, not mask it here either for
consistency) ?

Thanks,
Guenter



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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:32:28 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 08:29 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000.
> > 
> > ---
> >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > --- lm-sensors.orig/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-02 08:53:12.000000000 +0100
> > +++ lm-sensors/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-05 13:58:35.549784178 +0100
> > @@ -1350,6 +1350,16 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
> >  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> >  		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 10); },
> >  	}, {
> > +		name => "ST STTS2002",
> > +		driver => "jc42",
> > +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 11); },
> > +	}, {
> > +		name => "ST STTS3000",
> > +		driver => "jc42",
> > +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 12); },
> > +	}, {
> >  		name => "NXP SE97/SE97B",
> >  		driver => "jc42",
> >  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > @@ -5965,7 +5975,7 @@ sub max6655_detect
> >  # Chip to detect: 0 = STTS424, 1 = SE97/SE97B, 2 = SE98, 3 = ADT7408,
> >  #                 4 = TS3000/TSE2002, 5 = MAX6604, 6 = MCP98242,
> >  #                 7 = MCP98243, 8 = MCP9843, 9 = CAT6095 / CAT34TS02,
> > -#                 10 = STTS424E
> > +#                 10 = STTS424E, 11 = STTS2002, 12 = STTS3000
> >  # Registers used:
> >  #   0x00: Capabilities
> >  #   0x01: Configuration
> > @@ -6022,6 +6032,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
> >  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
> >  		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> >  		return unless $devid = 0x00;		# STTS424E02
> > +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> > +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > +		return unless $devid = 0x03;		# STTS2002
> > +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> > +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > +		return unless $devid = 0x02;		# STTS3000
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	# Now, do it all again with words. Note that we get
> > @@ -6067,6 +6083,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
> >  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
> >  		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> >  		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0000; # STTS424E02
> > +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> > +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0003; # STTS2002
> > +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> > +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0002; # STTS3000
> >  	}
> 
> Hi Jean,
> 
> you are masking the chip IDs against 0xfeff. That made sense for
> STTS424E02, which has two variants. Any special reason for doing it for
> STTS2002 and STTS3000 as well ? If so, shouldn't we do the same for the
> jc42 driver (or, alternatively, not mask it here either for
> consistency) ?

We do mask for the STTS424 in sensors-detect too, while we don't in the
jc42 driver. I'm simply doing the same here for the STTS2002 and
STTS3000. It surprised me too at first, but then I though it made sense
to be slightly more permissive in sensors-detect, so that we can spot
and add new IDs as/if they show up.

But I am fine aligning sensors-detect and jc42 to match exactly if you
think it's preferable. Your call.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000

[Guenter Roeck]

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 12:00 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:32:28 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 08:29 -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Add detection of ST Mircoelectronics STTS2002 and STTS3000.
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > --- lm-sensors.orig/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-02 08:53:12.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ lm-sensors/prog/detect/sensors-detect	2012-03-05 13:58:35.549784178 +0100
> > > @@ -1350,6 +1350,16 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
> > >  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > >  		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 10); },
> > >  	}, {
> > > +		name => "ST STTS2002",
> > > +		driver => "jc42",
> > > +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > > +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 11); },
> > > +	}, {
> > > +		name => "ST STTS3000",
> > > +		driver => "jc42",
> > > +		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > > +		i2c_detect => sub { jedec_JC42_4_detect(@_, 12); },
> > > +	}, {
> > >  		name => "NXP SE97/SE97B",
> > >  		driver => "jc42",
> > >  		i2c_addrs => [0x18..0x1f],
> > > @@ -5965,7 +5975,7 @@ sub max6655_detect
> > >  # Chip to detect: 0 = STTS424, 1 = SE97/SE97B, 2 = SE98, 3 = ADT7408,
> > >  #                 4 = TS3000/TSE2002, 5 = MAX6604, 6 = MCP98242,
> > >  #                 7 = MCP98243, 8 = MCP9843, 9 = CAT6095 / CAT34TS02,
> > > -#                 10 = STTS424E
> > > +#                 10 = STTS424E, 11 = STTS2002, 12 = STTS3000
> > >  # Registers used:
> > >  #   0x00: Capabilities
> > >  #   0x01: Configuration
> > > @@ -6022,6 +6032,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
> > >  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
> > >  		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > >  		return unless $devid = 0x00;		# STTS424E02
> > > +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> > > +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > > +		return unless $devid = 0x03;		# STTS2002
> > > +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> > > +		return unless $manid = 0x10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > > +		return unless $devid = 0x02;		# STTS3000
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	# Now, do it all again with words. Note that we get
> > > @@ -6067,6 +6083,12 @@ sub jedec_JC42_4_detect
> > >  	} elsif ($chip = 10) {
> > >  		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > >  		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0000; # STTS424E02
> > > +	} elsif ($chip = 11) {
> > > +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > > +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0003; # STTS2002
> > > +	} elsif ($chip = 12) {
> > > +		return unless $manid = 0x4a10;		# STMicrolectronics
> > > +		return unless ($devid & 0xfeff) = 0x0002; # STTS3000
> > >  	}
> > 
> > Hi Jean,
> > 
> > you are masking the chip IDs against 0xfeff. That made sense for
> > STTS424E02, which has two variants. Any special reason for doing it for
> > STTS2002 and STTS3000 as well ? If so, shouldn't we do the same for the
> > jc42 driver (or, alternatively, not mask it here either for
> > consistency) ?
> 
> We do mask for the STTS424 in sensors-detect too, while we don't in the
> jc42 driver. I'm simply doing the same here for the STTS2002 and
> STTS3000. It surprised me too at first, but then I though it made sense
> to be slightly more permissive in sensors-detect, so that we can spot
> and add new IDs as/if they show up.
> 
I didn't realize that sensor-detect also uses a mask for STTS424. Oddly
enough, that one's "official" devid/revision is 0x0101.

> But I am fine aligning sensors-detect and jc42 to match exactly if you
> think it's preferable. Your call.
> 
Never mind; your reasoning makes sense.

Thanks,
Guenter



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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6779D and NCT6102D/NCT6106D

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index 615ed65..b08d205 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
   sensors: Fix libiconv linkage need detection in rare corner case
   sensors-detect: Don't choke on systems without PCI
                   Avoid probing EDID addresses on graphics cards (#2386)
+		  Add detection of NCT6779D and NCT6102D/NCT6106D
 
 3.3.2 (2012-03-14)
   libsensors: Added support for new sysfs attributes
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 58f7fd0..6bfd1e2 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2034,6 +2034,18 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x0b,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6779D Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# nct6775, new driver
+		devid => 0xC562,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6102D/NCT6106D Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# nct6775, new driver
+		devid => 0x1061,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "Fintek F71805F/FG Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "f71805f",
 		devid => 0x0406,
-- 
1.7.5.4


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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |    8 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index b08d205..8361883 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ SVN HEAD
   sensors-detect: Don't choke on systems without PCI
                   Avoid probing EDID addresses on graphics cards (#2386)
 		  Add detection of NCT6779D and NCT6102D/NCT6106D
+		  Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268
 
 3.3.2 (2012-03-14)
   libsensors: Added support for new sysfs attributes
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 6bfd1e2..df0e301 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -1904,6 +1904,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		driver => "not-a-sensor",
 		devid => 0x28,
 	}, {
+		name => "SMSC LPC47N217 Super IO",
+		driver => "not-a-sensor",
+		devid => 0x7a,
+	}, {
 		name => "SMSC LPC47N227 Super IO",
 		driver => "not-a-sensor",
 		devid => 0x5a,
@@ -1911,6 +1915,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		name => "SMSC LPC47N237 Super IO",
 		driver => "not-a-sensor",
 		devid => 0x13,
+	}, {
+		name => "SMSC SIO10N268 Notebook IO",
+		driver => "not-a-sensor",
+		devid => 0x5b,
 	}
 );
 
-- 
1.7.5.4


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268

[Jean Delvare]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:00:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index b08d205..8361883 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>    sensors-detect: Don't choke on systems without PCI
>                    Avoid probing EDID addresses on graphics cards (#2386)
>  		  Add detection of NCT6779D and NCT6102D/NCT6106D
> +		  Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268
>  
>  3.3.2 (2012-03-14)
>    libsensors: Added support for new sysfs attributes
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 6bfd1e2..df0e301 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -1904,6 +1904,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
>  		devid => 0x28,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "SMSC LPC47N217 Super IO",
> +		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> +		devid => 0x7a,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "SMSC LPC47N227 Super IO",
>  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
>  		devid => 0x5a,
> @@ -1911,6 +1915,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		name => "SMSC LPC47N237 Super IO",
>  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
>  		devid => 0x13,
> +	}, {
> +		name => "SMSC SIO10N268 Notebook IO",
> +		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> +		devid => 0x5b,
>  	}
>  );
>  

I didn't check the IDs but the "code" itself looks OK, please commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268

[Guenter Roeck]

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 15:53 -0400, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:00:46 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > ---
> >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    8 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > index b08d205..8361883 100644
> > --- a/CHANGES
> > +++ b/CHANGES
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> >    sensors-detect: Don't choke on systems without PCI
> >                    Avoid probing EDID addresses on graphics cards (#2386)
> >  		  Add detection of NCT6779D and NCT6102D/NCT6106D
> > +		  Add detection of SMSC LPC47N217 and SIO10N268
> >  
> >  3.3.2 (2012-03-14)
> >    libsensors: Added support for new sysfs attributes
> > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > index 6bfd1e2..df0e301 100755
> > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > @@ -1904,6 +1904,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
> >  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> >  		devid => 0x28,
> >  	}, {
> > +		name => "SMSC LPC47N217 Super IO",
> > +		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> > +		devid => 0x7a,
> > +	}, {
> >  		name => "SMSC LPC47N227 Super IO",
> >  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> >  		devid => 0x5a,
> > @@ -1911,6 +1915,10 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
> >  		name => "SMSC LPC47N237 Super IO",
> >  		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> >  		devid => 0x13,
> > +	}, {
> > +		name => "SMSC SIO10N268 Notebook IO",
> > +		driver => "not-a-sensor",
> > +		devid => 0x5b,
> >  	}
> >  );
> >  
> 
> I didn't check the IDs but the "code" itself looks OK, please commit.
> 
Jean,

did you see the earlier patch I sent out a couple of weeks ago, adding
support to detect the new Nuvoton chips ? I would like to commit that
patch as well if it is ok with you.

Thanks,
Guenter



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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Guenter Roeck]

New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
   sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
                   Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
                   Handle built-in modules properly
+                  Add detection of NCT6791D
 
 3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
   sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x0b,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "nct6775",
+		devid => 0xC800,
+		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "Nuvoton NCT6102D/NCT6104D/NCT6106D Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "to-be-written",	# nct6775
 		devid => 0xC450,
-- 
1.7.9.7


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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6681D, NCT6682D, and NCT6683D

[Guenter Roeck]

NCT6683D is found on recent Intel mainboards (eg DH87MC, DH87RL).
NCT6681D is mentioned on the Nuvoton web site. NCT6682D is similar
to NCT6681D with added support for current monitoring.

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |    1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   14 ++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index b264f41..59ea06a 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
                   Handle built-in modules properly
                   Add detection of NCT6791D
+                  Add detection of NCT6681D, NCT6682D, and NCT6683D
 
 3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
   sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 9c213b6..14c092a 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2031,6 +2031,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x0b,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6681D/NCT6682D eSIO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0xB270,
+		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "Nuvoton W83667HG-B (NCT5571D) Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "w83627ehf",
 		devid => 0xB350,
@@ -2063,6 +2070,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x0b,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6683D eSIO",
+		driver => "to-be-written",
+		devid => 0xC730,
+		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "nct6775",
 		devid => 0xC800,
-- 
1.7.9.7


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
>                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
>                    Handle built-in modules properly
> +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
>  
>  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
>    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		logdev => 0x0b,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "nct6775",
> +		devid => 0xC800,

The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?

> +		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
> +		logdev => 0x0b,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "Nuvoton NCT6102D/NCT6104D/NCT6106D Super IO Sensors",
>  		driver => "to-be-written",	# nct6775
>  		devid => 0xC450,


-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6681D, NCT6682D, and NCT6683D

[Jean Delvare]

On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:05:02 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> NCT6683D is found on recent Intel mainboards (eg DH87MC, DH87RL).
> NCT6681D is mentioned on the Nuvoton web site. NCT6682D is similar
> to NCT6681D with added support for current monitoring.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    |    1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   14 ++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)

Looks good, please commit.

These chips look completely different from the other Nuvoton chips. It
will be a lot of work to support them, right?

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > ---
> >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> > --- a/CHANGES
> > +++ b/CHANGES
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> >    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
> >                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
> >                    Handle built-in modules properly
> > +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
> >  
> >  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
> >    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
> >  		logdev => 0x0b,
> >  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> >  	}, {
> > +		name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> > +		driver => "nct6775",
> > +		devid => 0xC800,
> 
> The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?
> 
That would be the same as nct6779d, which seems unlikely. Driver code is
from David Bartley, who I am sure tested it with his board.

David, can you comment ?

Once we know for sure I'll get in touch with Nuvoton and ask for clarification.

Thanks,
Guenter

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6681D, NCT6682D, and NCT6683D

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:35:09AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:05:02 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > NCT6683D is found on recent Intel mainboards (eg DH87MC, DH87RL).
> > NCT6681D is mentioned on the Nuvoton web site. NCT6682D is similar
> > to NCT6681D with added support for current monitoring.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > ---
> >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   14 ++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> Looks good, please commit.
> 
> These chips look completely different from the other Nuvoton chips. It
> will be a lot of work to support them, right?
> 
Yes, it will require new driver.

Guenter

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[David Bartley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1919 bytes --]

The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Hi Guenter,
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> > >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > > index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> > > --- a/CHANGES
> > > +++ b/CHANGES
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> > >    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
> > >                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
> > >                    Handle built-in modules properly
> > > +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
> > >
> > >  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
> > >    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> > > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> > > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS      => (1 << 7);
> > >             logdev => 0x0b,
> > >             features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> > >     }, {
> > > +           name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> > > +           driver => "nct6775",
> > > +           devid => 0xC800,
> >
> > The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?
> >
> That would be the same as nct6779d, which seems unlikely. Driver code is
> from David Bartley, who I am sure tested it with his board.
>
> David, can you comment ?
>
> Once we know for sure I'll get in touch with Nuvoton and ask for
> clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2677 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> 

Hi Jean and David,

Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.

Thanks,
Guenter

> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Hi Guenter,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > ---
> > > >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> > > >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > > > index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> > > > --- a/CHANGES
> > > > +++ b/CHANGES
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> > > >    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
> > > >                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
> > > >                    Handle built-in modules properly
> > > > +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
> > > >
> > > >  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
> > > >    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> > > > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> > > > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS      => (1 << 7);
> > > >             logdev => 0x0b,
> > > >             features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> > > >     }, {
> > > > +           name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> > > > +           driver => "nct6775",
> > > > +           devid => 0xC800,
> > >
> > > The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?
> > >
> > That would be the same as nct6779d, which seems unlikely. Driver code is
> > from David Bartley, who I am sure tested it with his board.
> >
> > David, can you comment ?
> >
> > Once we know for sure I'll get in touch with Nuvoton and ask for
> > clarification.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Guenter
> >

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[killghost]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2795 bytes --]

maybe chip id is 0xc802

> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700
> From: linux@roeck-us.net
> To: andareed@gmail.com
> CC: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> 
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > 
> 
> Hi Jean and David,
> 
> Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.
> 
> Thanks,
> Guenter
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Hi Guenter,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> > > > >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > > > > index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> > > > > --- a/CHANGES
> > > > > +++ b/CHANGES
> > > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> > > > >    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
> > > > >                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
> > > > >                    Handle built-in modules properly
> > > > > +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
> > > > >
> > > > >  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
> > > > >    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> > > > > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> > > > > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS      => (1 << 7);
> > > > >             logdev => 0x0b,
> > > > >             features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> > > > >     }, {
> > > > > +           name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> > > > > +           driver => "nct6775",
> > > > > +           devid => 0xC800,
> > > >
> > > > The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?
> > > >
> > > That would be the same as nct6779d, which seems unlikely. Driver code is
> > > from David Bartley, who I am sure tested it with his board.
> > >
> > > David, can you comment ?
> > >
> > > Once we know for sure I'll get in touch with Nuvoton and ask for
> > > clarification.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Guenter
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lm-sensors mailing list
> lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
 		 	   		  

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3960 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Guenter Roeck]

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:56:44AM +0000, killghost wrote:
> maybe chip id is 0xc802
> 
[ please don't top-post on the mailing list ]

The last nibble is the version number, so both is possible and accepted.

Guenter

> > Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700
> > From: linux@roeck-us.net
> > To: andareed@gmail.com
> > CC: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> > Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Jean and David,
> > 
> > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Guenter
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:24:22AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guenter,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:19:39 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > > New superio chip, found on recent ASUS boards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  CHANGES                    |    1 +
> > > > > >  prog/detect/sensors-detect |    7 +++++++
> > > > > >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> > > > > > index 7036afe..b264f41 100644
> > > > > > --- a/CHANGES
> > > > > > +++ b/CHANGES
> > > > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
> > > > > >    sensors-detect: Report built-in drivers as such
> > > > > >                    Use modules.builtin instead of /sys/module
> > > > > >                    Handle built-in modules properly
> > > > > > +                  Add detection of NCT6791D
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  3.3.4 (2013-05-27)
> > > > > >    sensors.conf.5: Mention "sensors -u" to get the raw feature names
> > > > > > diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > > index 94645dc..9c213b6 100755
> > > > > > --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > > +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> > > > > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS      => (1 << 7);
> > > > > >             logdev => 0x0b,
> > > > > >             features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> > > > > >     }, {
> > > > > > +           name => "Nuvoton NCT6791D Super IO Sensors",
> > > > > > +           driver => "nct6775",
> > > > > > +           devid => 0xC800,
> > > > >
> > > > > The datasheet says 0xC560. Who is right?
> > > > >
> > > > That would be the same as nct6779d, which seems unlikely. Driver code is
> > > > from David Bartley, who I am sure tested it with his board.
> > > >
> > > > David, can you comment ?
> > > >
> > > > Once we know for sure I'll get in touch with Nuvoton and ask for
> > > > clarification.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Guenter
> > > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > lm-sensors mailing list
> > lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
>  		 	   		  

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[Jean Delvare]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> 
> Hi Jean and David,
> 
> Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.

OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
Meanwhile you can commit your patch.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[killghost]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --]

NCT6791 added 122byte read-only registers for Hardware Monitor. The base address is specified in registersCR[64h] and CR[65h] of Logical Device B, the hardware monitor device. CR[64h] is the high byte, and CR[65h] isthe low byte. The least byte of the base address recommend to be zero. For example, {CR[64h], CR[65h]} ={XX00h}.

who know that how to read this data? 



> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:23:52 +0200
> From: khali@linux-fr.org
> To: linux@roeck-us.net
> CC: andareed@gmail.com; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > 
> > Hi Jean and David,
> > 
> > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.
> 
> OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
> Meanwhile you can commit your patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lm-sensors mailing list
> lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
 		 	   		  

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1737 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[David Bartley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1533 bytes --]

I can provide register dumps if there's interest, but it seemed like these
read-only registers were mostly just copies of parts of bank 4.


On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:

> NCT6791 added 122byte read-only registers for Hardware Monitor. The base
> address is specified in registers
> CR[64h] and CR[65h] of Logical Device B, the hardware monitor device.
> CR[64h] is the high byte, and CR[65h] is
> the low byte. The least byte of the base address recommend to be zero. For
> example, {CR[64h], CR[65h]} =
> {XX00h}.
>
> who know that how to read this data?
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:23:52 +0200
> > From: khali@linux-fr.org
> > To: linux@roeck-us.net
> > CC: andareed@gmail.com; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of
> NCT6791D
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the
> physical chip
> > > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > >
> > > Hi Jean and David,
> > >
> > > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.
> >
> > OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
> > Meanwhile you can commit your patch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Jean Delvare
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lm-sensors mailing list
> > lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2564 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[killghost]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1805 bytes --]

I need this,and How to read ?
From: andareed@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:42:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
To: killghost@msn.com
CC: khali@linux-fr.org; linux@roeck-us.net; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org

I can provide register dumps if there's interest, but it seemed like these read-only registers were mostly just copies of parts of bank 4.

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:





NCT6791 added 122byte read-only registers for Hardware Monitor. The base address is specified in registersCR[64h] and CR[65h] of Logical Device B, the hardware monitor device. CR[64h] is the high byte, and CR[65h] is

the low byte. The least byte of the base address recommend to be zero. For example, {CR[64h], CR[65h]} ={XX00h}.

who know that how to read this data? 



> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:23:52 +0200


> From: khali@linux-fr.org
> To: linux@roeck-us.net
> CC: andareed@gmail.com; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org


> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:


> > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > 
> > Hi Jean and David,
> > 
> > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.


> 
> OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
> Meanwhile you can commit your patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> 


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


 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3076 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[David Bartley]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1980 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:26 AM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:

> I need this,and How to read ?
>

http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/nct6791d/



> ------------------------------
> From: andareed@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:42:13 -0700
>
> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> To: killghost@msn.com
> CC: khali@linux-fr.org; linux@roeck-us.net; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
>
>
> I can provide register dumps if there's interest, but it seemed like these
> read-only registers were mostly just copies of parts of bank 4.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:
>
> NCT6791 added 122byte read-only registers for Hardware Monitor. The base
> address is specified in registers
> CR[64h] and CR[65h] of Logical Device B, the hardware monitor device.
> CR[64h] is the high byte, and CR[65h] is
> the low byte. The least byte of the base address recommend to be zero. For
> example, {CR[64h], CR[65h]} =
> {XX00h}.
>
> who know that how to read this data?
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:23:52 +0200
> > From: khali@linux-fr.org
> > To: linux@roeck-us.net
> > CC: andareed@gmail.com; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of
> NCT6791D
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:
> > > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the
> physical chip
> > > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > >
> > > Hi Jean and David,
> > >
> > > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.
> >
> > OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
> > Meanwhile you can commit your patch.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Jean Delvare
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lm-sensors mailing list
> > lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
> > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3870 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D

[killghost]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2230 bytes --]

Thank you！

From: andareed@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 00:16:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
To: killghost@msn.com
CC: khali@linux-fr.org; linux@roeck-us.net; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:26 AM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:






I need this,and How to read ?

http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/nct6791d/



 
From: andareed@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:42:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D



To: killghost@msn.com
CC: khali@linux-fr.org; linux@roeck-us.net; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org




I can provide register dumps if there's interest, but it seemed like these read-only registers were mostly just copies of parts of bank 4.

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:32 PM, killghost <killghost@msn.com> wrote:








NCT6791 added 122byte read-only registers for Hardware Monitor. The base address is specified in registersCR[64h] and CR[65h] of Logical Device B, the hardware monitor device. CR[64h] is the high byte, and CR[65h] is




the low byte. The least byte of the base address recommend to be zero. For example, {CR[64h], CR[65h]} ={XX00h}.

who know that how to read this data? 



> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:23:52 +0200





> From: khali@linux-fr.org
> To: linux@roeck-us.net
> CC: andareed@gmail.com; lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org





> Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of NCT6791D
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 19:52:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:52AM -0700, David Bartley wrote:





> > > The value of CR[20]/CR[21] on my board is 0xc8/0x03, and the physical chip
> > > itself has "NCT6791D" printed on it.
> > 
> > Hi Jean and David,
> > 
> > Nuvoton confirms that 0xc803 is the correct chip ID.





> 
> OK, I suppose they will fix it in the next version of the datasheet.
> Meanwhile you can commit your patch.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Jean Delvare
> 


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





 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4316 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 153 bytes --]

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |    3 +++
 prog/detect/sensors-detect |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index e1347a6..970dd67 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
 lm-sensors CHANGES file
 -----------------------
 
+SVN HEAD
+  sensors-detect: Add detection of ADC128D818
+
 3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
   libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
               Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 33
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index a2093f3..2136b76 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -547,6 +547,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
 		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
 		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
 	}, {
+		name => "TI / National Semiconductor ADC128D818",
+		driver => "adc128d818",
+		i2c_addrs => [0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37],
+		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 2); },
+	}, {
 		name => "National Semiconductor LM85",
 		driver => "lm85",
 		i2c_addrs => [0x2c..0x2e],
@@ -4436,11 +4441,13 @@ sub lm92_detect
 # Chip to detect: 0 = LM80, 1 = LM96080
 # Registers used:
 #   0x00: Configuration register
-#   0x02: Interrupt state register
-#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080 only)
+#   0x02: Interrupt state register (LM80, LM96080 only)
+#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
+#   0x08: Oneshot register (ADC128D818 only)
+#   0x09: Shutdown register (ADC128D818 only)
 #   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers (LM80 only)
-#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080 only)
-#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080 only)
+#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
+#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
 # The LM80 is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
 # registers. So we have to use some tricks:
 #   - 6-bit addressing, so limits readings modulo 0x40 should be unchanged
@@ -4458,9 +4465,9 @@ sub lm80_detect
 	my ($i, $reg);
 
 	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x00) & 0x80) != 0;
-	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
 
 	if ($chip = 0) {
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
 		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
 			$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
 			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
@@ -4493,11 +4500,20 @@ sub lm80_detect
 		return unless $confidence > 0;
 		return $confidence;
 	} elsif ($chip = 1) {
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
 		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
 		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
 		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x08;
 
 		return 6;
+	} elsif ($chip = 2) {
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x08) & 0xfe) != 0;
+		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x09) & 0xfe) != 0;
+		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
+		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x09;
+
+		return 6;
 	}
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.7


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:54:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    |    3 +++
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index e1347a6..970dd67 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
>  lm-sensors CHANGES file
>  -----------------------
>  
> +SVN HEAD
> +  sensors-detect: Add detection of ADC128D818
> +
>  3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>    libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
>                Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 33
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index a2093f3..2136b76 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -547,6 +547,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>  		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
>  		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
>  	}, {
> +		name => "TI / National Semiconductor ADC128D818",
> +		driver => "adc128d818",
> +		i2c_addrs => [0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37],
> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 2); },

How does this relate to the LM80?

Is this chip really something people will need sensors-detect for (i.e.
it is found in PC-like computers) or something which will be always
declared in DT-like declarations anyway?

I'm asking because I am worried about the address list. I'm fine with
0x1d..0x1f and 0x2d..0x2f (you can declare them that way in perl BTW,
it's more compact) but addresses 0x35..0x37 we don't currently scan.
Adding a new address to the scan list is always a risk, as you may start
probing a whole new class of devices and the effects can be very bad.

Actually we used to scan address 0x37 until r3233 / 2006-01-16. Commit
message was:

"Lower the confidence of ITE overclocking chips. Do not scan
address 0x37 for these chips, as it may cause problem with some
eeproms."

Addresses 0x35 and 0x36 I don't think we ever scanned, but EEPROMs can
reply to these as well so I'd rather not add them.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Guenter Roeck]

Hi Jean,

On 01/25/2014 02:05 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:54:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> ---
>>   CHANGES                    |    3 +++
>>   prog/detect/sensors-detect |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
>> index e1347a6..970dd67 100644
>> --- a/CHANGES
>> +++ b/CHANGES
>> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
>>   lm-sensors CHANGES file
>>   -----------------------
>>
>> +SVN HEAD
>> +  sensors-detect: Add detection of ADC128D818
>> +
>>   3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>>     libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
>>                 Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 33
>> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>> index a2093f3..2136b76 100755
>> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>> @@ -547,6 +547,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>>   		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
>>   		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
>>   	}, {
>> +		name => "TI / National Semiconductor ADC128D818",
>> +		driver => "adc128d818",
>> +		i2c_addrs => [0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37],
>> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 2); },
>
> How does this relate to the LM80?
>
> Is this chip really something people will need sensors-detect for (i.e.
> it is found in PC-like computers) or something which will be always
> declared in DT-like declarations anyway?
>
No idea, really. I was asked by someone from TI to write a driver some time ago,
and finally found the time to actually do it. I recall they had a request
from a customer, but I did not ask for the use case.

The chip is a close relative to LM80 and LM96080. Register addresses are
almost the same, but the sensor registers are 16 bit wide instead of 8,
and there are no fan registers. I didn't use the lm80 driver because of
the 16 bit registers, but decided to write a new one.

> I'm asking because I am worried about the address list. I'm fine with
> 0x1d..0x1f and 0x2d..0x2f (you can declare them that way in perl BTW,
> it's more compact) but addresses 0x35..0x37 we don't currently scan.
> Adding a new address to the scan list is always a risk, as you may start
> probing a whole new class of devices and the effects can be very bad.
>
> Actually we used to scan address 0x37 until r3233 / 2006-01-16. Commit
> message was:
>
> "Lower the confidence of ITE overclocking chips. Do not scan
> address 0x37 for these chips, as it may cause problem with some
> eeproms."
>
> Addresses 0x35 and 0x36 I don't think we ever scanned, but EEPROMs can
> reply to these as well so I'd rather not add them.
>
Ok with me to take out those three addresses ... or drop the entire detection
if you think it isn't worth it.

Question is what I should do in the driver. Any thoughts on that ?
For my part I am fine with dropping the detect function entirely from it;
I suspect you are right and it will mostly be used from DT type systems,
and from what you said it sounds a bit risky to scan the 0x35..0x37
address range.

Thanks,
Guenter


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:13:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/25/2014 02:05 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:54:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> >> ---
> >>   CHANGES                    |    3 +++
> >>   prog/detect/sensors-detect |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>   2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> >> index e1347a6..970dd67 100644
> >> --- a/CHANGES
> >> +++ b/CHANGES
> >> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
> >>   lm-sensors CHANGES file
> >>   -----------------------
> >>
> >> +SVN HEAD
> >> +  sensors-detect: Add detection of ADC128D818
> >> +
> >>   3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
> >>     libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
> >>                 Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 33
> >> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> >> index a2093f3..2136b76 100755
> >> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> >> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> >> @@ -547,6 +547,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
> >>   		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
> >>   		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
> >>   	}, {
> >> +		name => "TI / National Semiconductor ADC128D818",
> >> +		driver => "adc128d818",
> >> +		i2c_addrs => [0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37],
> >> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 2); },
> >
> > How does this relate to the LM80?
> >
> > Is this chip really something people will need sensors-detect for (i.e.
> > it is found in PC-like computers) or something which will be always
> > declared in DT-like declarations anyway?
>
> No idea, really. I was asked by someone from TI to write a driver some time ago,
> and finally found the time to actually do it. I recall they had a request
> from a customer, but I did not ask for the use case.
> 
> The chip is a close relative to LM80 and LM96080. Register addresses are
> almost the same, but the sensor registers are 16 bit wide instead of 8,
> and there are no fan registers. I didn't use the lm80 driver because of
> the 16 bit registers, but decided to write a new one.

Then I suggest using a different detect function in sensors-detect.
There isn't enough in common with detect_lm80 to reuse it, and having a
1:1 mapping between sensors-detect functions and drivers has advantages.

> > I'm asking because I am worried about the address list. I'm fine with
> > 0x1d..0x1f and 0x2d..0x2f (you can declare them that way in perl BTW,
> > it's more compact) but addresses 0x35..0x37 we don't currently scan.
> > Adding a new address to the scan list is always a risk, as you may start
> > probing a whole new class of devices and the effects can be very bad.
> >
> > Actually we used to scan address 0x37 until r3233 / 2006-01-16. Commit
> > message was:
> >
> > "Lower the confidence of ITE overclocking chips. Do not scan
> > address 0x37 for these chips, as it may cause problem with some
> > eeproms."
> >
> > Addresses 0x35 and 0x36 I don't think we ever scanned, but EEPROMs can
> > reply to these as well so I'd rather not add them.
>
> Ok with me to take out those three addresses ... or drop the entire detection
> if you think it isn't worth it.

I am fine with the detection function. Please just drop the 3 addresses
in the 0x30-0x37 range.

> Question is what I should do in the driver. Any thoughts on that ?
> For my part I am fine with dropping the detect function entirely from it;
> I suspect you are right and it will mostly be used from DT type systems,
> and from what you said it sounds a bit risky to scan the 0x35..0x37
> address range.

You can keep the detect function in the driver as long as you remove
the 0x35..0x37 addresses from the scan list. Just document it properly
and that should be fine.

About the code itself:

> @@ -4436,11 +4441,13 @@ sub lm92_detect
>  # Chip to detect: 0 = LM80, 1 = LM96080
>  # Registers used:
>  #   0x00: Configuration register
> -#   0x02: Interrupt state register
> -#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080 only)
> +#   0x02: Interrupt state register (LM80, LM96080 only)
> +#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
> +#   0x08: Oneshot register (ADC128D818 only)
> +#   0x09: Shutdown register (ADC128D818 only)

The datasheet I have states that 0x09 is the One-Shot register and 0x0a
is the Deep Shutdown register.

>  #   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers (LM80 only)
> -#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080 only)
> -#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080 only)
> +#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
> +#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
>  # The LM80 is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
>  # registers. So we have to use some tricks:
>  #   - 6-bit addressing, so limits readings modulo 0x40 should be unchanged
> @@ -4458,9 +4465,9 @@ sub lm80_detect
>  	my ($i, $reg);
>  
>  	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x00) & 0x80) != 0;

For the ADC128D818 you can even mask with 0xf4, slightly improving the
reliability.

> -	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>  
>  	if ($chip = 0) {
> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>  		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
>  			$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
>  			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
> @@ -4493,11 +4500,20 @@ sub lm80_detect
>  		return unless $confidence > 0;
>  		return $confidence;
>  	} elsif ($chip = 1) {
> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>  		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
>  		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
>  		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x08;
>  
>  		return 6;
> +	} elsif ($chip = 2) {
> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x08) & 0xfe) != 0;
> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x09) & 0xfe) != 0;

You could also check register 0x0c, which as 6 unused bits.

> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x09;
> +
> +		return 6;
>  	}
>  }
>  

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Guenter Roeck]

On 01/26/2014 05:22 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:13:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 01/25/2014 02:05 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:54:51 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>>>> ---
>>>>    CHANGES                    |    3 +++
>>>>    prog/detect/sensors-detect |   26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>    2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
>>>> index e1347a6..970dd67 100644
>>>> --- a/CHANGES
>>>> +++ b/CHANGES
>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,9 @@
>>>>    lm-sensors CHANGES file
>>>>    -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> +SVN HEAD
>>>> +  sensors-detect: Add detection of ADC128D818
>>>> +
>>>>    3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>>>>      libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
>>>>                  Increase MAX_SENSORS_PER_TYPE to 33
>>>> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>>>> index a2093f3..2136b76 100755
>>>> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>>>> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
>>>> @@ -547,6 +547,11 @@ use vars qw(@i2c_adapter_names);
>>>>    		i2c_addrs => [0x28..0x2f],
>>>>    		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 1); },
>>>>    	}, {
>>>> +		name => "TI / National Semiconductor ADC128D818",
>>>> +		driver => "adc128d818",
>>>> +		i2c_addrs => [0x1d, 0x1e, 0x1f, 0x2d, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x35, 0x36, 0x37],
>>>> +		i2c_detect => sub { lm80_detect(@_, 2); },
>>>
>>> How does this relate to the LM80?
>>>
>>> Is this chip really something people will need sensors-detect for (i.e.
>>> it is found in PC-like computers) or something which will be always
>>> declared in DT-like declarations anyway?
>>
>> No idea, really. I was asked by someone from TI to write a driver some time ago,
>> and finally found the time to actually do it. I recall they had a request
>> from a customer, but I did not ask for the use case.
>>
>> The chip is a close relative to LM80 and LM96080. Register addresses are
>> almost the same, but the sensor registers are 16 bit wide instead of 8,
>> and there are no fan registers. I didn't use the lm80 driver because of
>> the 16 bit registers, but decided to write a new one.
>
> Then I suggest using a different detect function in sensors-detect.
> There isn't enough in common with detect_lm80 to reuse it, and having a
> 1:1 mapping between sensors-detect functions and drivers has advantages.
>
Ok.

>>> I'm asking because I am worried about the address list. I'm fine with
>>> 0x1d..0x1f and 0x2d..0x2f (you can declare them that way in perl BTW,
>>> it's more compact) but addresses 0x35..0x37 we don't currently scan.
>>> Adding a new address to the scan list is always a risk, as you may start
>>> probing a whole new class of devices and the effects can be very bad.
>>>
>>> Actually we used to scan address 0x37 until r3233 / 2006-01-16. Commit
>>> message was:
>>>
>>> "Lower the confidence of ITE overclocking chips. Do not scan
>>> address 0x37 for these chips, as it may cause problem with some
>>> eeproms."
>>>
>>> Addresses 0x35 and 0x36 I don't think we ever scanned, but EEPROMs can
>>> reply to these as well so I'd rather not add them.
>>
>> Ok with me to take out those three addresses ... or drop the entire detection
>> if you think it isn't worth it.
>
> I am fine with the detection function. Please just drop the 3 addresses
> in the 0x30-0x37 range.
>
Ok.

>> Question is what I should do in the driver. Any thoughts on that ?
>> For my part I am fine with dropping the detect function entirely from it;
>> I suspect you are right and it will mostly be used from DT type systems,
>> and from what you said it sounds a bit risky to scan the 0x35..0x37
>> address range.
>
> You can keep the detect function in the driver as long as you remove
> the 0x35..0x37 addresses from the scan list. Just document it properly
> and that should be fine.
>
> About the code itself:
>
>> @@ -4436,11 +4441,13 @@ sub lm92_detect
>>   # Chip to detect: 0 = LM80, 1 = LM96080
>>   # Registers used:
>>   #   0x00: Configuration register
>> -#   0x02: Interrupt state register
>> -#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080 only)
>> +#   0x02: Interrupt state register (LM80, LM96080 only)
>> +#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
>> +#   0x08: Oneshot register (ADC128D818 only)
>> +#   0x09: Shutdown register (ADC128D818 only)
>
> The datasheet I have states that 0x09 is the One-Shot register and 0x0a
> is the Deep Shutdown register.
>
Funny, in the driver I got that right :-)

>>   #   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers (LM80 only)
>> -#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080 only)
>> -#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080 only)
>> +#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
>> +#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
>>   # The LM80 is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
>>   # registers. So we have to use some tricks:
>>   #   - 6-bit addressing, so limits readings modulo 0x40 should be unchanged
>> @@ -4458,9 +4465,9 @@ sub lm80_detect
>>   	my ($i, $reg);
>>
>>   	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x00) & 0x80) != 0;
>
> For the ADC128D818 you can even mask with 0xf4, slightly improving the
> reliability.
>
Ok.

>> -	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>>
>>   	if ($chip = 0) {
>> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>>   		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
>>   			$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
>>   			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
>> @@ -4493,11 +4500,20 @@ sub lm80_detect
>>   		return unless $confidence > 0;
>>   		return $confidence;
>>   	} elsif ($chip = 1) {
>> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
>>   		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
>>   		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
>>   		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x08;
>>
>>   		return 6;
>> +	} elsif ($chip = 2) {
>> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
>> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x08) & 0xfe) != 0;
>> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x09) & 0xfe) != 0;
>
> You could also check register 0x0c, which as 6 unused bits.
>
As well as 0x0b.

>> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
>> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x09;
>> +
>> +		return 6;

If I do all that, is that worth a higher rating ?

Thanks,
Guenter


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of TI ADC128D818

[Jean Delvare]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:33:31 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 05:22 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > About the code itself:
> >
> >> @@ -4436,11 +4441,13 @@ sub lm92_detect
> >>   # Chip to detect: 0 = LM80, 1 = LM96080
> >>   # Registers used:
> >>   #   0x00: Configuration register
> >> -#   0x02: Interrupt state register
> >> -#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080 only)
> >> +#   0x02: Interrupt state register (LM80, LM96080 only)
> >> +#   0x07: Converstion rate register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
> >> +#   0x08: Oneshot register (ADC128D818 only)
> >> +#   0x09: Shutdown register (ADC128D818 only)
> >
> > The datasheet I have states that 0x09 is the One-Shot register and 0x0a
> > is the Deep Shutdown register.
> >
> Funny, in the driver I got that right :-)
> 
> >>   #   0x2a-0x3d: Limits registers (LM80 only)
> >> -#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080 only)
> >> -#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080 only)
> >> +#   0x3e: Manufacturer's ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
> >> +#   0x3f: Stepping/die revision ID register (LM96080, ADC128D818 only)
> >>   # The LM80 is easily misdetected since it doesn't provide identification
> >>   # registers. So we have to use some tricks:
> >>   #   - 6-bit addressing, so limits readings modulo 0x40 should be unchanged
> >> @@ -4458,9 +4465,9 @@ sub lm80_detect
> >>   	my ($i, $reg);
> >>
> >>   	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x00) & 0x80) != 0;
> >
> > For the ADC128D818 you can even mask with 0xf4, slightly improving the
> > reliability.
> >
> Ok.
> 
> >> -	return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
> >>
> >>   	if ($chip = 0) {
> >> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
> >>   		for ($i = 0x2a; $i <= 0x3d; $i++) {
> >>   			$reg = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i);
> >>   			return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, $i+0x40) != $reg;
> >> @@ -4493,11 +4500,20 @@ sub lm80_detect
> >>   		return unless $confidence > 0;
> >>   		return $confidence;
> >>   	} elsif ($chip = 1) {
> >> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x02) & 0xc0) != 0;
> >>   		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
> >>   		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
> >>   		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x08;
> >>
> >>   		return 6;
> >> +	} elsif ($chip = 2) {
> >> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x07) & 0xfe) != 0;
> >> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x08) & 0xfe) != 0;
> >> +		return if (i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x09) & 0xfe) != 0;
> >
> > You could also check register 0x0c, which as 6 unused bits.
> >
> As well as 0x0b.
> 
> >> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3e) != 0x01;
> >> +		return if i2c_smbus_read_byte_data($file, 0x3f) != 0x09;
> >> +
> >> +		return 6;
> 
> If I do all that, is that worth a higher rating ?

It could be a 7, yes.

-- 
Jean Delvare

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8786E

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    | 1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index e462aea..03eb7fb 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Add detection of EMC1422
                   Document driver support for TMP431 and TMP432
                   Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
+                  Add detection of IT8786E
 
 3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
   libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index ebdc439..9b7ba8f 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2388,6 +2388,12 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		devid => 0x8783,
 		logdev => 0x04,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8786E Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
+		devid => 0x8786,
+		logdev => 0x04,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}
 );
 
-- 
2.1.0


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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8780F

[Guenter Roeck]

The chip does not seem to be widely used, but its datasheet is available,
and superiotool has basic support for it, so it makes sense to detect it.

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    | 1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index 03eb7fb..9304ce2 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Document driver support for TMP431 and TMP432
                   Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
                   Add detection of IT8786E
+                  Add detection of IT8780F
 
 3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
   libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 9b7ba8f..c5a49f5 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2371,6 +2371,12 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x04,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8780F Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
+		devid => 0x8780,
+		logdev => 0x04,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "ITE IT8781F Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
 		devid => 0x8781,
-- 
2.1.0


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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8731F and IT8732F

[Guenter Roeck]

IT8731F is found on Lenovo M92p-2988.
IT8732F is found on Gigabyte GA-6LXSL.

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    |  1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect | 12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index 9304ce2..128699b 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ SVN HEAD
                   Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
                   Add detection of IT8786E
                   Add detection of IT8780F
+                  Add detection of IT8731F and IT8732F
 
 3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
   libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index c5a49f5..6fb9218 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2353,6 +2353,18 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x04,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8731F Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
+		devid => 0x8731,
+		logdev => 0x04,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
+		name => "ITE IT8732F Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
+		devid => 0x8732,
+		logdev => 0x04,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "ITE IT8752F Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
 		devid => 0x8752,
-- 
2.1.0


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8786E

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:45:55 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    | 1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index e462aea..03eb7fb 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Add detection of EMC1422
>                    Document driver support for TMP431 and TMP432
>                    Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
> +                  Add detection of IT8786E
>  
>  3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>    libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index ebdc439..9b7ba8f 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -2388,6 +2388,12 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		devid => 0x8783,
>  		logdev => 0x04,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8786E Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
> +		devid => 0x8786,
> +		logdev => 0x04,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}
>  );
>  

Looks good, please commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8780F

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:34:21 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> The chip does not seem to be widely used, but its datasheet is available,
> and superiotool has basic support for it, so it makes sense to detect it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    | 1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect | 6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index 03eb7fb..9304ce2 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Document driver support for TMP431 and TMP432
>                    Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
>                    Add detection of IT8786E
> +                  Add detection of IT8780F
>  
>  3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>    libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 9b7ba8f..c5a49f5 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -2371,6 +2371,12 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		logdev => 0x04,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8780F Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
> +		devid => 0x8780,
> +		logdev => 0x04,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "ITE IT8781F Super IO Sensors",
>  		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
>  		devid => 0x8781,

Looks good, please commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of IT8731F and IT8732F

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:48:23 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> IT8731F is found on Lenovo M92p-2988.
> IT8732F is found on Gigabyte GA-6LXSL.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    |  1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect | 12 ++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index 9304ce2..128699b 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>                    Add detection of TMP400 and TMP435
>                    Add detection of IT8786E
>                    Add detection of IT8780F
> +                  Add detection of IT8731F and IT8732F
>  
>  3.3.5 "Happy Birthday Beddy" (2014-01-22)
>    libsensors: Improve documentation of two functions
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index c5a49f5..6fb9218 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -2353,6 +2353,18 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		logdev => 0x04,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8731F Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
> +		devid => 0x8731,
> +		logdev => 0x04,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
> +		name => "ITE IT8732F Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
> +		devid => 0x8732,
> +		logdev => 0x04,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "ITE IT8752F Super IO Sensors",
>  		driver => "to-be-written",	# it87
>  		devid => 0x8752,

Looks good, please commit.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

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

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of Novoton NCT6793D

[Guenter Roeck]

Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
 CHANGES                    | 1 +
 prog/detect/sensors-detect | 7 +++++++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
index af4ee59..95fed99 100644
--- a/CHANGES
+++ b/CHANGES
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
   sensors-detect: Fix systemd paths
                   Add detection of Fintek F81768
                   Only probe I/O ports on x86
+                  Add detection of Nuvoton NCT6793D
 
 3.4.0 (2015-06-25)
   documentation: Update the note about libsensors license
diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
index 3a44141..234dc39 100755
--- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
+++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
@@ -2171,6 +2171,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
 		logdev => 0x0b,
 		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
 	}, {
+		name => "Nuvoton NCT6793D Super IO Sensors",
+		driver => "nct6775",
+		devid => 0xD110,
+		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
+		logdev => 0x0b,
+		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
+	}, {
 		name => "Nuvoton NCT6102D/NCT6104D/NCT6106D Super IO Sensors",
 		driver => "nct6775",
 		devid => 0xC450,
-- 
2.1.4


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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of Novoton NCT6793D

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Guenter,

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 20:57:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
> ---
>  CHANGES                    | 1 +
>  prog/detect/sensors-detect | 7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES
> index af4ee59..95fed99 100644
> --- a/CHANGES
> +++ b/CHANGES
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ SVN HEAD
>    sensors-detect: Fix systemd paths
>                    Add detection of Fintek F81768
>                    Only probe I/O ports on x86
> +                  Add detection of Nuvoton NCT6793D
>  
>  3.4.0 (2015-06-25)
>    documentation: Update the note about libsensors license
> diff --git a/prog/detect/sensors-detect b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> index 3a44141..234dc39 100755
> --- a/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> +++ b/prog/detect/sensors-detect
> @@ -2171,6 +2171,13 @@ use constant FEAT_SMBUS	=> (1 << 7);
>  		logdev => 0x0b,
>  		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
>  	}, {
> +		name => "Nuvoton NCT6793D Super IO Sensors",
> +		driver => "nct6775",
> +		devid => 0xD110,
> +		devid_mask => 0xFFF0,
> +		logdev => 0x0b,
> +		features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP,
> +	}, {
>  		name => "Nuvoton NCT6102D/NCT6104D/NCT6106D Super IO Sensors",
>  		driver => "nct6775",
>  		devid => 0xC450,

I can't check the device ID as I do not have the datasheet, but this
looks good, please commit.

Please also add an entry for the NCT6793D to wiki/Devices.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

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

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] sensors-detect: Add detection of Novoton NCT6793D

[Jean Delvare]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:26:56 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Please also add an entry for the NCT6793D to wiki/Devices.

Now I see you did that already. Apparently I was looking at an outdated
cached copy of the wiki page, sorry for the noise.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

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