On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Uwe Hermann <u...@hermann-uwe.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 01:02:53PM -0700, David Hendricks wrote: > > The patch (attached) was tested by a user on IRC who had the F71889FG. I > > wrote it using documentation from Fintek's website available here: > > http://www.fintek.com.tw/files/productfiles/F71889_V0.28P.pdf > > > > This patch also seems to work for the F71889ED, which uses 0x09 and 0x09 > for > > Both times 0x09? Or is this a typo? > FWIW, lm-sensors has these two entries: }, { name => "Fintek F71889FG Super IO Sensors", driver => "f71882fg", devid => 0x0723, logdev => 0x04, features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP, }, { name => "Fintek F71889E Super IO Sensors", driver => "to-be-written", devid => 0x0909, logdev => 0x04, features => FEAT_IN | FEAT_FAN | FEAT_TEMP, }, { I am not certain what the difference is between the two chips, if any are discernible from superiotool's perspective. The F71889FG datasheet seems to be the public one -- the 0x23 and 0x07 chip IDs match the documented values. However, the chip I tested with has F71889ED printed on it and has 0x09 for the two chip ID bytes. > > > chip ID bytes 1 & 2. However, I have not been able to find documentation > to > > verify that the two chips are identical from superiotool's perspective. > > > > The F71889 seems popular on current generation platforms with AMD > chipsets, > > in case there are folks looking to try it on a presently unsupported > > board... > > > > Signed-off-by: David Hendricks <dhend...@google.com> > > Are you sure this is the correct patch? It doesn't seem to match the > datasheet in a number of places, e.g. 0x20 and 0x21 (IDs) are incorrect > in NOLDN (as well as most other values in NOLDN), some registers are > missing > completely, some LDNs are missing completely etc. > > Is this for another Super I/O, or remainders of copying another table? > I took a glance at the patch again and agree that there are several places where the code does not match the doc. Probably sloppy copy + paste on my part. Let's hold off on this patch until NTU, myself, or someone has time to check the accuracy. If someone happens to have a F71889*ED* datasheet with the chip ID bytes both listed as 0x09, that would help. -- David Hendricks (dhendrix) Systems Software Engineer, Google Inc.
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot