| Message ID | 20170504113506.1665ecd7@endymion (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
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,
--- linux-4.11.orig/drivers/hwmon/it87.c 2017-05-01 04:47:48.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-4.11/drivers/hwmon/it87.c 2017-05-04 11:17:49.868328706 +0200 @@ -3224,13 +3224,6 @@ static int __init sm_it87_init(void) goto exit_dev_unregister; found = true; - - /* - * IT8705F may respond on both SIO addresses. - * Stop probing after finding one. - */ - if (sio_data.type == it87) - break; } if (!found) {
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. Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> --- drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 7 ------- 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)