On Monday 11 August 2008 14:55:19 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:33:22PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > ---------------
> > include/linux/thermal.h
> > struct thermal_zone_device_ops {
> > ..
> > int (*get_temp) (struct thermal_zone_device *, char *);
> > ..
> > }
>
> You're missing the cleanup patches for the thermal layer that I posted
> at the same time.
So what is the status here, how should we proceed?
This isn't applied to any tree yet?
IMO you should send those two with below fixed and Andi could queue them on
the test branch and keep it a while there.
I could then try to get the ThinkPad thermal shutdown fixed in a generic way
on top.
> > So Matthew's patch more looks like a suggestion/proof of concept patch.
> > Another bug I saw by looking over this one:
> > + tz->ops->get_crit_temp(tz, &crit_temp);
> > + tz->force_passive_temp = crit_temp-5000;
> > It must get checked whether a critical trip point exists at all.
>
> Yes, the return value for get_crit_temp should be checked. I think 5
> degrees is safe enough, though - I haven't been able to cause a system
> to respond too quickly at that point.
The temperature of some ThinkPads can raise very quickly.
> The polling frequency is increased
> if the temperature gets within 5 degrees of the new passive trip point.
Not sure whether this is enough, but I have some people at hand who would
thankfully try it out if things could finally be solved for ever in mainline.
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
