Skip to contentSkip to conversation

[2.6.21] Add adt7467 to lm85

PATCH New Jean Delvare 2 participants 3 messages Jan 25, 2007 – Jan 26, 2007

lore
Share & tools
lore

Jean Delvare

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 [2.6.21] Add adt7467 to lm85

Hi Olof,

You hit the wrong list. Hardware monitoring driver updates should be directed to the lm-sensors list, to which I am replying.

Quoted 1 line · Olof Johansson

Enable ADT7467 support in lm85.

Did you make sure that the ADT7467 is 100% compatible with the ADT7463? The change of major revision number causes me to have a doubt.

Quoted 53 lines
Signed-off-by Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>

Index: powerpc/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c =================================> --- powerpc.orig/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c +++ powerpc/drivers/hwmon/lm85.c

(quoted diff) +9 -2
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 static unsigned short normal_i2c[] = { 0x2c, 0x2d, 0x2e, I2C_CLIENT_END };
 
 /* Insmod parameters */
-I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_6(lm85b, lm85c, adm1027, adt7463, emc6d100, emc6d102);
+I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_7(lm85b, lm85c, adm1027, adt7463, adt7467, emc6d100, emc6d102);
 
 /* The LM85 registers */
 

@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ I2C_CLIENT_INSMOD_6(lm85b, lm85c, adm102
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_ADM1027		0x60
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7463		0x62
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7463C		0x6A
+#define	LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7467		0x71
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_EMC6D100_A0        0x60
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_EMC6D100_A1        0x61
 #define	LM85_VERSTEP_EMC6D102		0x65

@@ -1172,6 +1173,9 @@ static int lm85_detect(struct i2c_adapte
 			 || verstep = LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7463C) ) {
 			kind = adt7463 ;
 		} else if( company = LM85_COMPANY_ANALOG_DEV
+		    && (verstep = LM85_VERSTEP_ADT7467) ) {
+			kind = adt7467 ;
+		} else if( company = LM85_COMPANY_ANALOG_DEV
 		    && (verstep & LM85_VERSTEP_VMASK) = LM85_VERSTEP_GENERIC ) {
 			dev_err(&adapter->dev, "Unrecognized version/stepping 0x%02x"
 				" Defaulting to Generic LM85.\n", verstep );

@@ -1223,6 +1227,8 @@ static int lm85_detect(struct i2c_adapte
 		type_name = "adm1027";
 	} else if ( kind = adt7463 ) {
 		type_name = "adt7463";
+	} else if ( kind = adt7467 ) {
+		type_name = "adt7467";
 	} else if ( kind = emc6d100){
 		type_name = "emc6d100";
 	} else if ( kind = emc6d102 ) {

@@ -1410,7 +1416,8 @@ static struct lm85_data *lm85_update_dev
 		/* Have to read extended bits first to "freeze" the
 		 * more significant bits that are read later.
 		 */
-		if ( (data->type = adm1027) || (data->type = adt7463) ) {
+		if ( (data->type = adm1027) || (data->type = adt7463) ||
+		     (data->type = adt7467) ) {
 			int ext1 = lm85_read_value(client,
 						   ADM1027_REG_EXTEND_ADC1);
 			int ext2 =  lm85_read_value(client,

Review static struct lm85_data *lm85_update_dev · line 1471

Quoted 7 lines
(quoted diff) +1 -1
@@ -1459,7 +1466,7 @@ static struct lm85_data *lm85_update_dev
 
 		data->alarms = lm85_read_value(client, LM85_REG_ALARM1);
 
-		if ( data->type = adt7463 ) {
+		if ( data->type = adt7463 || data->type = adt7467 ) {
 			if( data->therm_total < ULONG_MAX - 256 ) {
 			    data->therm_total +>  				lm85_read_value(client, ADT7463_REG_THERM );

Please also update Documentation/hwmon/lm85 and drivers/hwmon/Kconfig.

Thanks,

Signature · 1 line
Jean Delvare
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 [2.6.21] Add adt7467 to lm85

Quoted 4 lines · Jean Delvare

Hi Olof,

You hit the wrong list. Hardware monitoring driver updates should be directed to the lm-sensors list, to which I am replying.

Yep, my bad. Sorry about that.

Quoted 5 lines · Olof Johansson
Quoted 1 line

Enable ADT7467 support in lm85.

Did you make sure that the ADT7467 is 100% compatible with the ADT7463? The change of major revision number causes me to have a doubt.

The main difference seems to be that the 7467 lacks some of the voltage features, something that I wasn't using in my setup so I never ran into issues with it. I'll double-check and repost.

Quoted 1 line

Please also update Documentation/hwmon/lm85 and drivers/hwmon/Kconfig.

Will do.

-Olof

author
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 [2.6.21] Add adt7467 to lm85

In reply to Jean Delvare

Olof,

Quoted 7 lines · Olof Johansson
Quoted 2 lines · Jean Delvare

Did you make sure that the ADT7467 is 100% compatible with the ADT7463? The change of major revision number causes me to have a doubt.

The main difference seems to be that the 7467 lacks some of the voltage features, something that I wasn't using in my setup so I never ran into issues with it. I'll double-check and repost.

If the ADT7467 has less features, we really need to adjust the driver not to export the missing ones. Otherwise users will keep reporting these as a bug.

Thanks,

Signature · 1 line
Jean Delvare