Skip to contentSkip to conversation

I2C: Skip broken detection step in it87

PATCH New Jean Delvare 2 participants 2 messages May 19, 2005

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 I2C: Skip broken detection step in it87

Hi Greg,

One of the detection steps in the it87 chip driver was reported to be broken for some revisions of the IT8712F chip [1] [2]. This detection step is a legacy from the lm78 driver and the documentation available for the IT8705F and IT8712F chips does not mention it at all. For this reason, I propose to skip this detection step for Super-I/O chips. Super-I/O chips have already been identified when we reach this step, so it is redundant (additionally do being broken). This closes bug #4335.

Please apply,
thanks.

[1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?idC35
[2] http://archives.andrew.net.au/lm-sensors/msg29962.html

drivers/i2c/chips/it87.c renamed from drivers/i2c/chips/it87.c.orig +2 -3
@@ -734,10 +734,9 @@
 			goto ERROR0;
 
 	/* Probe whether there is anything available on this address. Already
-	   done for SMBus clients */
+	   done for SMBus and Super-I/O clients */
 	if (kind < 0) {
-		if (is_isa) {
-
+		if (is_isa && !chip_type) {
 #define REALLY_SLOW_IO
 			/* We need the timeouts for at least some IT87-like chips. But only
 			   if we read 'undefined' registers. */
Signature · 1 line
Jean Delvare
Applied
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 I2C: Skip broken detection step in it87

Quoted 10 lines · Jean Delvare

Hi Greg,

One of the detection steps in the it87 chip driver was reported to be broken for some revisions of the IT8712F chip [1] [2]. This detection step is a legacy from the lm78 driver and the documentation available for the IT8705F and IT8712F chips does not mention it at all. For this reason, I propose to skip this detection step for Super-I/O chips. Super-I/O chips have already been identified when we reach this step, so it is redundant (additionally do being broken). This closes bug #4335.

Quoted 7 lines

Please apply,
thanks.

[1] http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?idC35
[2] http://archives.andrew.net.au/lm-sensors/msg29962.html

Applied, thanks.

greg k-h