Subject:
[PATCH] Re: SOLVED: Ticket #1409
Date:
Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:48:32 +0200
From:
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no>
Organization:
m
To:
Mark Studebaker <mds@paradyne.com>
CC:
lm78@stimpy.netroedge.com, LM_Sensors developers <sensors@stimpy.netroedge.com>
References:
1 , 2 , 3
Bjørn Mork <bjorn@mork.no> writes:
> Mark Studebaker <mds@paradyne.com> writes:
>
>> If you port over the super i/o code from one of the 3 drivers listed
>> above
>> and send us a patch we'll include it.
>
> OK. Will do.
Here's the patch as promised. Took the code from smsc47m1.c. It
currently only changes behaviour for the IT8712F since I cannot test
on any other IT87-chips, and the comments in sensors-detect made me
uncertain whether they really use the same key/exit sequence.
Also changed sensors-detect somewhat to support longer devids and exit
sequences. Don't know if you'll approve my perl though...
Bjørn
git-svn-id: http://lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk@2170 7894878c-1315-0410-8ee3-d5d059ff63e0
Subject:
RE: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1
Date:
Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:34:11 -0800
From:
"Marc Rieffel" <marc@paracel.com>
To:
<sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com>
I agree that you shouldn't distribute RPMs. That doesn't make sense for kernel modules.
For people like me, who want to easily deploy lm_sensors across a cluster of uniform machines, it's very handy to have a spec
file there so that we can build our own RPMs for specific systems with specific kernels and configurations. Even though the
spec file you had was out of date, it still saved me a lot of trouble.
My vote would be to keep the spec files. If nobody wants to maintain them, call them unsupported or unmaintained.
Who's Axel? I'd be happy to work with him, or just use whatever he has or recommends.
Unified diffs attached.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Delvare [mailto:khali@linux-fr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Marc Rieffel; Axel Thimm
> Cc: sensors@Stimpy.netroedge.com
> Subject: Re: RPM spec file patches for i2c and lm_sensors 2.8.1
>
>
>
> > I had to make these changes to be able to build i2c and lm_sensors
> > rpms that worked. Also, lm_sensors.init isn't included in
> any of the
> > rpms. Looks like nobody's touched these for several versions.
>
> You're right, the files were untouched since May 2000. Quite a while
> actually. We don't build RPMs anymore. I personnaly consider that this
> is the distributor's job, not our. They do that much better than we
> would.
>
> > i2c.spec:
> >
> > 25c27
> > < %define ver 2.8.1
> > ---
> > > %define ver 2.5.0
> > (...)
>
> Please provide unified diffs if you want me to apply them to
> our files.
>
> You could also consider getting in touch with Axel, who is building
> quality RPM packages from our sources, using his own .spec
> files. Maybe
> you both will agree on some version of the spec files that we should
> include in our source files. Or maybe we should simply remove the RPM
> directory from our source trees - that would be more honest
> IMHO, since
> nobody here seems to be wanting to maintain them, while Axel
> is doing a
> very great job on his side. Let packagers package, that's their job :)
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
>
git-svn-id: http://lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk@2169 7894878c-1315-0410-8ee3-d5d059ff63e0
chip, but we'll guess that GPIO5 are used for this purpose. It's
correct for (at least) Asus P4C800-E, and if it's wrong for any
others then we're no worse off. Also, switch to using common LM75
conversion functions.
git-svn-id: http://lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk@2151 7894878c-1315-0410-8ee3-d5d059ff63e0
header and gave them the prefix LM75_. Also rewrote them according
to the lm75 datasheet. The next step is to replace all the various
scattered (broken?) copies of these functions (especially in Winbond
subclients) with this one.
git-svn-id: http://lm-sensors.org/svn/lm-sensors/trunk@2130 7894878c-1315-0410-8ee3-d5d059ff63e0
Jean Delvare