Re: [PATCH] I2C update for 2.6.9

[Bill Davidsen]

Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
>
> > Greg KH wrote:
>
>
> I actually wrote this.
>
>
> > > Trip points
> > > ===========
> > >
> > > Trip points are now numbered (point1, point2, etc...) instead of
> > > named(_off, _min, _max, _full...). This solves the problem of
> > > various chips having a different number of trip points. The
> > > interface is still chip independent in that it doesn't require
> > > chip-specific knowledge to be used by user-space apps.
> >
> > It would seem that all chips would have off, max, full, etc, but
> > mapping nondescript names into functionality may require some chip
> > info anyway. As you note, with some chips these are not nice linear
> > points on a line, 
> >  so it would seem to tell if the top points were "max norm" and "max 
> > safe" vs. "critical" and "shutdown NOW" is still going to need some 
> > information on the chip, both points and operating range.
>
>
> The interface is actually (almost) self-sufficient. A point is the union
> of a temperature and a fan speed. Most often, point1 will have a speed
> of 0, which means it really is _off. point1 will be fan_min. point(P-1)
> will be _max, point(P) will have a speed of 100% and will be _full. The
> advantage of the numbered approach is that you can have has many points
> as the chip provides. It will also help user-space applications, since
> all points can be handled the exact same way, without having to
> interpret the names, know that some names have predefined fan speeds,
> etc.
>
> The only thing the interface doesn't tell is the shape of the curve
> resulting from the various trip points. This is admittedly chip
> dependent. I think it would be next to impossible to export this through
> sysfs, and I'm not sure it would be worth the pain anyway. The exact
> shape of the curve isn't that important IMHO.
>
> Your objection about "critical", "shutdown NOW" etc if out of the scope
> of this interface. The critical limits are defined by tempN_crit files.
> Actions taken by the chip when the limit is crossed is admittedly
> chip-dependent. Not a big deal either, since in most cases this is
> either not configurable or motherboard-dependent and set by the BIOS for
> us anyway.
>
> I hope I answered your question-which-was-not-really-one. :)
You have definitely given me a lot more information, and I do understand 
why you do it this way. The shape of the curve may be of interest I 
would think, if point3 to point4 is 30C to 40C I'm in a normal chip 
range. If they represent 40c to 85C I really worry about flames coming 
out next. That clearly can be known in the application as well, but it 
isn't as easy to to as having names like max_norm, etc.

Anyway, thinks for the expanded info, more than I expected from a 
non-question.

BTW: I see that the new G5 dual-CPU Mac does run the CPUs at 85C, liquid 
cooled. At least ComputerWorld says they do. Yikes!

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/