Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757639AbZFRTOk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752638AbZFRTOd (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:33 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49277 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751068AbZFRTOc (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:26 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Michael Riepe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rudolf Marek , lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable coretemp driver on Intel Atom Message-Id: <20090618121326.42ab9c2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <49E7C34A.60007@googlemail.com> References: <49E7C34A.60007@googlemail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2127 Lines: 57 On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:46:18 +0200 Michael Riepe 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 > 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 > > 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? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/