On Thu, 4 May 2017 11:35:06 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > There is no reason to treat the IT8705F differently during device > detection. If a single IT8705F chip indeed answers to both Super-IO > addresses, we have code in place to detect the duplicate device > address and skip the second one. > (...)
Bah, scratch this. I can't even convince myself that this is a good idea. Sure, the rest of the code is enough to deal with the situation, but why keep looking for something when we already know we will find and discard a duplicate... Sorry for the noise, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hwmon" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
