[coreboot] [superiotool] patch for fintek f71889fg

David Hendricks dhendrix at google.com
Thu Nov 4 20:46:16 CET 2010

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Uwe Hermann <uwe at 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 <dhendrix at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20101104/8ffc4335/attachment.html>

More information about the coreboot mailing list