Signed-off-by: Michael Riepe <[email protected]>
Index: drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvs/sys/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.5
diff -u -r1.1.1.5 coretemp.c
--- drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c 11 Jan 2009 21:29:23 -0000 1.1.1.5
+++ drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c 16 Apr 2009 23:02:40 -0000
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
}
}
- if (ismobile) {
+ if (ismobile || c->x86_model == 0x1c) {
err = rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(id, 0xee, &eax, &edx);
if (err) {
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@
if ((c->cpuid_level < 0) || (c->x86 != 0x6) ||
!((c->x86_model == 0xe) || (c->x86_model == 0xf) ||
(c->x86_model == 0x16) || (c->x86_model == 0x17) ||
- (c->x86_model == 0x1A))) {
+ (c->x86_model == 0x1A) || (c->x86_model == 0x1c))) {
/* supported CPU not found, but report the unknown
family 6 CPU */
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:46:18 +0200
Michael Riepe <[email protected]> wrote:
> This small patch enables the coretemp driver on an Intel Atom. I'm not
> sure if the readings are correct, however - on my 330, the driver
> reports values between 27 and 41 __C (with core1 being about 8__C hotter
> than core0, given the same load). Maybe the maximum temperature of 100
> __C is wrong for Atom CPUs.
>
> --
> Michael "Tired" Riepe <[email protected]>
> X-Tired: Each morning I get up I die a little
>
>
> [linux-2.6.29.1-coretemp-atom.diff text/plain (916B)]
> Signed-off-by: Michael Riepe <[email protected]>
>
> Index: drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvs/sys/kernel/linux-2.6/drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1.1.5
> diff -u -r1.1.1.5 coretemp.c
> --- drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c 11 Jan 2009 21:29:23 -0000 1.1.1.5
> +++ drivers/hwmon/coretemp.c 16 Apr 2009 23:02:40 -0000
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
> }
> }
>
> - if (ismobile) {
> + if (ismobile || c->x86_model == 0x1c) {
>
> err = rdmsr_safe_on_cpu(id, 0xee, &eax, &edx);
> if (err) {
> @@ -417,7 +417,7 @@
> if ((c->cpuid_level < 0) || (c->x86 != 0x6) ||
> !((c->x86_model == 0xe) || (c->x86_model == 0xf) ||
> (c->x86_model == 0x16) || (c->x86_model == 0x17) ||
> - (c->x86_model == 0x1A))) {
> + (c->x86_model == 0x1A) || (c->x86_model == 0x1c))) {
>
> /* supported CPU not found, but report the unknown
> family 6 CPU */
>
I'm not 100% sure what to do about this patch. I'm inclined to merge
it, even though you think it might be giving the wrong numbers,
because then someone might fix it.
otoh, if giving the wrong numbers leads to people's machines needlessly
shutting down or something like that, then that's not so good.
Opinions are sought?
Hi!
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure what to do about this patch. I'm inclined to merge
> it, even though you think it might be giving the wrong numbers,
> because then someone might fix it.
That was the basic idea :-)
> otoh, if giving the wrong numbers leads to people's machines needlessly
> shutting down or something like that, then that's not so good.
I don't think that that will happen. Core temperatures on my 330 are
lower than those reported by the other sensors (core 0/1: 27/35 ?C on an
idle system - hardly alarming in my opinion).
--
Michael "Tired" Riepe <[email protected]>
X-Tired: Each morning I get up I die a little
Hi all,
If someone has good contact at Intel, please do ask them to send a patch with
correct TjMax (or Tcontrol) temperature for this CPU. This info was hard to get
for the Core CPUs.
Thanks,
Rudolf