From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753120Ab0IHSbh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:31:37 -0400 Received: from imr4.ericy.com ([198.24.6.8]:60833 "EHLO imr4.ericy.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752563Ab0IHSbc (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:31:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:30:19 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jean Delvare CC: Andrew Morton , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: Add support for max6695 and max6696 to lm90 driver Message-ID: <20100908183019.GA12314@ericsson.com> References: <1283639675-31714-1-git-send-email-guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> <20100906181229.2e25db07@hyperion.delvare> <20100908102816.GA10676@ericsson.com> <20100908134854.2c60f406@hyperion.delvare> <20100908135654.GA11277@ericsson.com> <20100908172902.6ed57505@hyperion.delvare> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100908172902.6ed57505@hyperion.delvare> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:29:02AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 06:56:54 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > Too bad - registers 0x16 and 0x17 exist on both 6658 and 6659. So the only way to detect 6659 > > would be the address (0x4d or 0x4e), and we would mis-detect it on 0x4c. Is that worth it ? > > I'd say adding support for the MAX6659 is worth it. Just don't add > detection. That is, all of MAX6657, 6658 and 6658 should be detected as > max6657, which has the minimum set of features. But if someone declares > a "max6659" device either as part of the platform data or from > user-space, then the driver should expose all the chip features. > > Deal? > I'd say yes, but then we would deliberately mis-detect the 6659 on address 0x4d and 0x4e, which kind of hurts my consciousness. How about a middle ground - mis-detect it on address 0x4c, but detect it correctly on 0x4d and 0x4e ? Should be ok if we add a note into the file and into the documentation, and we would do as good as we can. Guenter