On Saturday 12 July 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:46:29 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > On Saturday 12 July 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > Why not just insist the 0x5x address be registered/probed? This > > > > extra stuff is needless and confusing. > > > > > > Because some of the chips supported by this driver (max7319, max7321, > > > max7322 and max7323) only use address 0x6x. > > > > That's not the behavior implemented here though ... it's always > > creating a dummy, even when it's not needed. > > Did you miss this comment of mine maybe? > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-July/004267.html
Server not responding; can't tell. Using the MARC.info archive [1] what message is that? Are you disagreeing with what I said? [1] http://marc.info/?t=121567059700001&r=1&w=2 _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
