On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:14:24AM +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote: > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:42:19PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 10:36 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:36:04PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > >>> Package: linux-2.6 > >>> Version: 2.6.32-23 > >>> Severity: wishlist > >>> Tags: squeeze > >>> > >>> I installed a fresh squeeze on a new PC with a MSI P55M-GD45 motherboard > >>> that uses a f71889fg sensor chip. Unfortunately, while lm-sensors' > >>> sensor-detect is able to find the chip and suggest a kernel module, the > >>> module doesn't load because it lacks support for the chip. > >>> > >>> The support was added somewhen between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33, and was added > >>> by commit 7669896f. I hear that you add support for hardware when the > >>> backport is simple, this one is pretty trivial. > >>> > >>> For other reasons, I already switched to 2.6.35 on that machine, so it's > >>> not a problem for me anymore, but the motherboard is already quite old, so > >>> other people may have similar problems with a fresh squeeze. > >> > >> I would also be interested in the watchdog support for the same chip, > > That patch does *not* add watchdog support for the Fintek F71889FG chip, > it *only* adds support for the F71808E and the F71882FG.
Oops. > Additionally a > patch for the F71862FG is currently pending review and inclusion. > > That being said, this driver should be fairly easy to expand to include > support for the F71889FG chip (AFAIK only pin-configuration should be > added, which probably is just a datasheet-reading exercise). Adding > support however would be something I'd suggest doing across the LKML > *first*, then (optionally) backport it later. > > >> coming in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. AFAICT, it requires > >> 8b6d043b7ee2d1b819dc833d677ea2aead71a0c0 and possibly > >> 729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a. I'm not sure how intrusive > >> these could be considered. > > > > They seem a bit intrusive but probably safe. > > I would consider 729d273 to be safe. 8b6d043 is a bit more complex, > though it should only affect I/O resources acquired with the newly > introduced flag IORESOURCE_MUXED, it thus shouldn't affect pre-existing > code. > > > However, the last patch (729d273aa7c86eb1406ade4eadf249cff188bf9a) > > doesn't look right; surely it should be using the new > > request_muxed_region() macro too? > > IIRC that patch was submitted and applied *before* 8b6d043, hence > request_muxed_region() wasn't available and thus not used. > > The patch to make use of request_muxed_region() [1] has been acked [2] > but not yet applied yet, I've just sent out a poke-mail (CC-ed to this > bug) with the request for it to be committed. > > [1] <[email protected]> AFAICS, this id refers to the patch that ended in 96cb4eb019ce3185ec0d946a74b5a2202f5067c9. The one you are referring to must be http://marc.info/?l=lm-sensors&m=127219192018988&w=2 I will give a try to your patch for the F71889FG watchdog, thanks. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
