On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Thomas Renninger wrote: > frequency (what we probably will do again soon). It has been tested that > specific ThinkPads do not throw a thermal event when exceeding the passive > trip point. Even thermal polling was not enough... Urgh. > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR,"IBM"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T41"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T42"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T41p"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T42p"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad R50p"), Just match BIOS 1R* with VENDOR IBM. The T40 is affected as well for sure. It uses the same BIOS and EC firmware, it *has* to be. And it is missing on this list. For IBM ThinkPads, it is *always* better to match on BIOS version than on product version. See here for model-BIOS table: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/BIOS_Upgrade_Downloads and here for DMI info table: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/List_of_DMI_IDs > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T43"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad T43p"), Two possible BIOS: 1Y and 70 for the T43, and BIOS 1Y for the T43p. Are you sure all of these machines have the bug? Is there a common factor in the DSDT tables we can check to root out the buggy ones? > + .ident = "IBM ThinkPad R40", > + .matches = { > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_BIOS_VENDOR,"IBM"), > + DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_VERSION,"ThinkPad R40"), > + }, Two possible BIOSes: 1O and 1P... and many other ThinkPad BIOSes exist in the time window from the 1O/1P to the 1Y. Shouldn't all of them be suspect? No X models have these issues? (the X models always had a slightly more advanced BIOS, so it is indeed possible that the bug was never on that branch of the code). > + if (dmi_check_system(thermal_psv_dmi_table)) { > + if (tz->trips.passive.flags.valid && > + tz->trips.passive.temperature > CELSIUS_TO_KELVIN(85)) { > + printk (KERN_INFO "Adjust passive trip point from %lu" > + " to %lu\n", > + KELVIN_TO_CELSIUS(tz->trips.passive.temperature), > + KELVIN_TO_CELSIUS(tz->trips.passive.temperature - 150)); > + tz->trips.passive.temperature -= 150; > + acpi_thermal_set_polling(tz, 5); > + } > + } If this is a safe test that won't misstrigger or cause issues, maybe just enable it on anything with BIOS_VENDOR IBM, and PRODUCT_VERSION "ThinkPad [TR]*" ? None of them have CPUs that should go over 85C, AFAIK. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
