[lm-sensors] add AMDSI PECI sensortype support to generic_temp_print

Jean Delvare khali at linux-fr.org
Sun Jul 8 20:56:15 CEST 2007


Hi Hans,

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:23:40 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The sensors3 patch should be pretty easy, maybe you could take care of
> > it? It's needed anyway, whether my kernel patch gets applied or not.
> 
> Ok, here is a proposal:
> 
> Index: prog/sensors/chips_generic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- prog/sensors/chips_generic.c        (revision 4566)
> +++ prog/sensors/chips_generic.c        (working copy)
> @@ -209,6 +209,11 @@
>     /* print out temperature sensor info */
>     if (TEMP_FEATURE(SENSORS_FEATURE_TEMP_SENS)) {
>       int sens = (int)TEMP_FEATURE_VAL(SENSORS_FEATURE_TEMP_SENS);
> +
> +    /* older kernels / drivers sometimes report a beta value for thermistors */
> +    if (sens > 1000)
> +      sens = 4;
> +
>       printf("sensor = %s", sens == 0 ? "disabled" :
>                             sens == 1 ? "diode" :
>                             sens == 2 ? "transistor" :
> 
> The idea here is that a beta value should (reasonably) always be > 1000, and we 
> don't want to assume thermistor for any unknown value as we might add new types 
> to the list later. Does this look ok?

Yes, that's fine with me.

> > I'm still not sure which minimum version we want to support. I don't
> > want to support anything older than 2.6.5 for sure, things were just
> > too badly broken before that. And I don't want to clutter the
> > libsensors code too much to deal with the non-standard things that some
> > old kernels had. Unless someone has a better plan, I think we'll make
> > things work for the systems we developers are using, and release that,
> > and then if users complain that it doesn't work with some older kernel
> > they're using, we'll consider adding support on a case-by-case basis,
> > depending on how intrusive that would be.
> 
> That sounds like a plan, but not like something one would put in a README, 
> which then brings me to the question what do we put in the readme, just that it 
> requires a kernel > 2.6.5, or maybe we should require one which has the hwmon 
> class?

Well, requiring the hwmon class would let us cleanup a number of things
for sure, so it may be a good idea. That would mean we "only" support
kernels >= 2.6.14. But even then, the README will have to mention that
some features are not available before much more recent kernels. Most
notably, the alarms for most devices won't be available before 2.6.24.

-- 
Jean Delvare




More information about the lm-sensors mailing list