Jean Delvare wrote: > > > Agreed that we are being exceptionally conservative. > > I recommend that we proceed in baby steps, a little bit more in each > > release, so that we get some testing and confidence. > > Agreed. I'd even propose not to change anything before the next release. > The detection method change is enough. > > > Some way of separating Thinkpads from servers would be a good first > > step. We could blacklist all Thinkpads but go a little farther with > > the servers. > > That's not necessarily easy. This means adding the list of known > Thinkpad IDs to sensors-detect. As I explained, this is a list we would > then have to maitain, with or without the help of IBM. You can imagine > that someone with a brand new Thinkpad, not listed yet, would give a try > to lm_sensors and have his/her laptop seen as a desktop IBM system. > > And, since we don't have a list of desktop IDs, we can't build a > white-list either. > I was hoping the DMI would have a string that said 'laptop' or 'thinkpad', or something would have a model number that was consistent with laptop model numbers. > This is how I came to my simple "IBM detected, block 24RF08 addresses" > strategy. It is both safe and almost-non-intrusive, as far as I can see. > > > > I first feared that the ddcmon would cause trouble because it > > > declares 0x51-0x57 as subaddresses, but reading the driver code, it > > > seems that it doesn't use them (and doesn't even "register" them). > > > > This is because some monitors use the exceptionally stupid 24C00 or > > 24C01 (NOT 24C01A) eeproms that respond to ALL addresses 0x50-57 with > > the same data. The subaddress declaration keeps sensors-detect from > > recommending the driver getting loaded 8 times, or ddcmon once and > > eeprom 7 times. > > I think all my monitors do that. But since I read in the DDC specs that > there could be more than one 256-byte block of data, I thought it was > just normal. I clearly remember my monitors answering on all 8 > addresses, but I don't remember if all addresses were returning the same > data. I'll take a look next time. > It's not uncommon for 8 shadows, but the usual case is the more common 24C01A chip that responds to only one address.
