Re: [PATCH] hwmon: Remove obsolete adm1021 and max6642 drivers

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 7/14/24 00:06, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 11:53:00AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 7/13/24 08:22, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 10:35:48AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/adm1021.c b/drivers/hwmon/adm1021.c
>>> [...]
>>>> -static const struct i2c_device_id adm1021_id[] = {
>>>> -	{ "adm1021", adm1021 },
>>>> -	{ "adm1023", adm1023 },
>>>> -	{ "max1617", max1617 },
>>>> -	{ "max1617a", max1617a },
>>>
>>> The device ID "max1617a" only in Documentation/hwmon/lm90.rst but not in
>>> drivers/hwmon/lm90.c which results in max1617a is no longer supported after
>>> applying the patch.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for noticing. It is an oversight, really. The chip is the same.
>> max1617a is even mentioned in the lm90 documentation.
>> The chip is detected and supported as "max1617" in the lm90 driver.
>> Here are the notes from that driver.
>>
>>   * Note: Multiple chips with different markings labeled as
>>   * "MAX1617" (no "A") were observed to report manufacturer ID
>>   * 0x4d and device ID 0x01. It is unknown if other variants of
>>   * MAX1617/MAX617A with different behavior exist. The detection
>>   * code below works for those chips.
> 
> Ack.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>
> 
>> Either case, all configurations enabling the adm1021 driver also enable the
>> lm90 driver, and that in turn prevents the adm1021 driver from being built.
>> Effectively that means that the adm1021 driver hasn't been built for a long
>> time.
> 
> Curious about how this happens: is there a way for telling build system that
> we prefer lm90 to adm1021?
> 

This was

config SENSORS_ADM1021
         tristate "Analog Devices ADM1021 and compatibles"
         depends on I2C
         depends on SENSORS_LM90=n
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks,
Guenter