[lm-sensors] Sensors-detect with DMI detection

Ivo Manca pinkel at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 11:09:14 CET 2007


Hi Jean,

Just a quick question (again ;)). Is it necesary for us to even think about 
supporting the 2.4 kernels?
I'm asking this, because if our addition doesn't get included before 
libsensors 3.x, it seems like we only get to work with 2.6, isn't it?

If that is so, we can drop a table in our database. This is because we want 
to add the kernel versions a configuration is working for. The easiest way 
to implement this, is to just modify the minimum kernel version for that 
configuration. If there's no support for 2.4, we can just add a field with 
the minimum working 2.6 kernel verson, like 2.6.10. Else, we must also 
register the minimum 2.4 version, either as a field, or with a 
table/relationship.

Just wondering :)

Ivo Manca
Jasper Alias
Gijs van der Weg

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jean Delvare" <khali at linux-fr.org>
To: "Ivo Manca" <pinkel at gmail.com>
Cc: "Hans de Goede" <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl>; <lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org>
Sent: Sunday 18 March 2007 21:29
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] Sensors-detect with DMI detection


> Hi Ivo,
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:08 +0100, Ivo Manca wrote:
>> First of all, is it good idea to scan for sensors in the CPU's after our
>> script successfully finds a match with the DMI information?
>> If we don't do this, the user might have a disadvantage using the new way 
>> of
>> detection, since the DMI information will only used be for mainboard
>> information.
>> However, we are not completely sure if the CPU detection is currently
>> completely safe. Do you have any idea about that? Because if it isn't, it
>> might not be a good idea to "just" let that also run.
>
> This is a good point. DMI data is indeed mainly about the motherboard,
> while sensors can be found in other parts of the computer: CPU as you
> found yourself, but also graphics adapter, memory module or hard disk
> drive (not yet supported by lm-sensors.) The DMI database you're
> working on can obviously only cover the motherboard sensors.
>
> The current detection of CPU-embedded sensors is totally safe. It's
> not based on physical probing as is the case for SMBus or Super-I/O
> hardware monitoring chips. Instead, it is based on the presence of a
> given PCI device (for AMD) or on the CPU ID (for Intel.) So it's OK to
> include that part of sensors-detect in conjunction with your DMI-based
> identification for the motherboard sensors.
>
> Note that PCI drivers can be automatically loaded, so we could even
> stop handling them in sensors-detect. We leave them in for
> completeness, but chances are that the driver will already be loaded
> before the user runs sensors-detect (assuming the required driver is
> available on the system, of course.)
>
>> Secondly, do you prefer using the local database (/cache, which contains 
>> the
>> dmi-info versus configuration) as the default option, or to prefer it 
>> when
>> the default option fetching the online database first?
>>
>> Downloading the online database is a big pro, since faulty and new
>> configurations can be fixed and updated.
>>
>> Just wondering what you think about it.
>
> Good point again. Using the local database first will lower the load on
> our server significantly, and will be overall faster for the user.
> Missing configurations that were added later to the online database are
> not a problem, we obviously want to try the online database if the
> local cache has no information. The case where the configuration file
> was updated is admittedly more problematic. I wonder how frequently the
> configurations will be updated in practice. It's hard to predict.
>
> I'm not too sure, but I'd say use the online database first, and
> fallback to the cache if network is not available OR if the user
> doesn't want the script to connect (a command-line option would be
> welcome.)
>
>> You were also saying that you could provided quite some more DMI strings 
>> to
>> complement the list Rudolf send earlier. Could you please do that? Would 
>> be
>> nice to find out about strange exceptions in an early stage ;).
>
> OK, I will extract the info and send it to you in private tomorrow.
>
> -- 
> Jean Delvare 





More information about the lm-sensors mailing list