RFC parameter based voltage scaling
Grant Coady
grant_lkml at dodo.com.au
Thu May 12 22:14:18 CEST 2005
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:41:35 -0400, Mark Studebaker <mds at mds.gotdns.com> wrote:
>Do you now think the formula is wrong or just hard to understand?
Not wrong, hard to understand :)
What do you think of this approach to calibration?
set sensors to 1:1 for unknowns so we read sensor chip's values
ask user for +12V, -5V, -12V BIOS or meter readings
calculate 'y = mx + c' transforms for sensors.conf, based on
discrete E24 resistor series: one decade for R1, two decades
for R2:
# ---o--> +12V
# |
# -
# | | R2 ---------------------- -5V, -12V
# | | | | ____ ____
# - | 3600mV Vref |--|____|--o--|____|-->
# | Vin | | R1 | R2
# o-----------| 0..4096mV | |
# | | 0..4096mV |----------
# - | W83697HF | Vin
# | | R1 | |
# | | ----------------------
# - |
# | 0V | 0V
# ---o----------------------o--------------------------------->
The technique seems viable, and has accuracy better than chip
A/D resolution. For those cases where mobo uses datasheet values
this technique has no use for end user, but when their voltages
are messed up, this technique will give a better answer being
based on a discrete set of viable transform 'x' ratios.
On reflection, end user doesn't want traceable transforms, that's
for driver writers -- and since we scaling lower sensor voltages in
user-space now, I doubt it worth changing unless I find errors in
transforms. And it is difficult to goof up on 16mV / bit :)
I think I now understand the 'datasheets not be trusted' related
to their strange formulas, only one datasheet (lm81) had a decent
transform, I've had to go back to basics to retrace path you guys
already done.
Is there a reason why sensors doesn't do the reverse transform for
voltage set functions? (rather than the explicit dual compute)
Thanks,
--Grant.
More information about the lm-sensors
mailing list