Re: wbsio(4): Winbond Super I/O driver for lm(4) over wbsio(4) attachment

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Constantine Aleksandrovich Murenin wrote:

> > 1. Does it make sense to extend this to any other functions of the
> >   super-IO chip?  Are any others likely to ever show up on non-
> >   standard ISA ports?
>
> Yes, wbsio(4) could later provide Watchdog Timer support, but such
> timer is accessed directly through the Super I/O ports, not through a
> separate set of ports as is the case with Hardware Monitor.

OK.

> > 2. In the man page, please change the statement
> >
> >        +driver provides support for the Winbond LPC Super I/O ICs.
> >
> >   to
> >
> >        +driver provides configuration support for the Winbond LPC
> >        +Super I/O ICs.
>
> Interesting point, but perhaps this is being too specific?
> Specifically since it could later even support the watchdog timer? :-)

OK.

> > 3. As written, wbsio_print() assumes that the ir_size of the lm(4)'s
> >   isa_attach_args is the same as the size of the wbsio(4)'s ir_size.
> >   Is this really correct?  Or should we explicitly set the ir_size
> >   member before calling config_found()?
>
> I don't see such assumption anywhere in wbsio(4).  In any case,
> ir_size is always set in the match procedure of the respective
> matching driver, e.g. it is still set to 8 for lm(4) in
> lm_isa_match():
>
> wbsio0 at isa0 port 0x2e-0x2f: Winbond LPC Super I/O W83627DHG rev 0x23
> lm0 at wbsio0 port 0x290-0x297
> lm0: Using default temp sensors
> lm0: Winbond W83627DHG Hardware monitor

OK, I was not aware that each device's *_match() routine would set the 
ir_size.  Thanks for clarifying.

> > Curiosity:
> > I will confess that I'm writing this section without datasheets in
> > front of me...  But I notice that there are some differences in the
> > lists of devices between wbsio(4) and lm(4).  A few IDs are the same,
> > but most are different.
> >
> > I also notice that wbsio(4) uses the device-ID, while lm(4) uses the
> > chip-ID.
> >
> > Question:
> > 4. So, would it make sense to be consistent and use the same xxx-ID in
> >   both drivers?  (In which case, wbsio(4) could simply include
> >  nslm7xvar.h rather than having its own ID definitions.)
>
> Your observation is correct- the namespace for IDs is different, so
> it would not make much sense to unify this with nslm7xvar.h in any
> way.

OK

> > Question:
> > 5. And, does the list of devices in wbsio(4) deliberately exclude the
> >   rest of the lm(4) devices?  Or could some/all of the remaining
> >   chips from lm(4) be added to wbsio(4)?
>
> I think all supported devices were actually already included, and
> since wbsio(4) was written, no new devices were introduced to lm(4).
> Obviously, not all of those supported by lm(4) could ever show up on
> the isa bus - for example, W83792D and a few others are SMBus-only.

OK.

You've addressed all my concerns.  Let's give a couple days for others 
to comment.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Paul Goyette   | PGP DSS Key fingerprint: |  E-mail addresses:      |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 |  paul at whooppee.com   |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------