never mind. I think, on the iopener, when sensors-detect gave the IBM warning, I was running as non-root. It doesn't give the warning when run as root. Sorry for the false alarm. But anyway, would it be helpful to put out a message in sensors-detect when it can't determine the system type, even as root? And yes, on the 2 "typical" machines, it doesn't mention VPD. nice job on the dmidecode package and website BTW. Jean Delvare wrote: > > > tested new sensors-detect on 4 machines. > > 2 w/ ACPI+DMI worked fine. > > Typical configuration. The output doesn't even mention VPD, right? > > > One with neither (iopener) gave the standard Thinkpad warning at the > > beginning. > > Should not happen. This could happen if /dev/mem is unreadable for some > reason. Could you download dmidecode CVS and give a try to biosdecode? > Then edit the Makefile, remove -DUSE_MMAP, compile again and retry. > Might crash. If it does, this means I should use mmap() to access > /dev/mem in sensors-detect - although I don't even know how to do that. > > Anything special about that iopener? You once sent me a copy of the BIOS > area and there's nothing strange at first sight, except that it actually > doesn't support any of ACPI, SMBIOS nor VPD. > > If biosdecode works OK on it (both with and without -DUSE_MMAP), please > try to track down why system_safeness_by_vpd in sensors-detect returns > 0. There are three reasons it could (you'll see in the code). The third > one is the more likely to cause problems (I think). > > > On my HP ia64 machine it didn't give any ACPI or DMI info but didn't > > give the Thinkpad warning either... what's up with that? > > That's the expected behavior. This is why VPD supersedes the other > methods. If ACPI or DMI isn't present, you can't conclude, while VPD > being not there *does* mean that it's not an IBM system (with the > exception of one very specific Thinkpad model). > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. > > -- > Jean Delvare > http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/
