* Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> [2004-08-12 20:46:31 +0200]: > > > Yeah, LM93... four tachos, two PWM outputs. Odd, but it seems like > > > one anticipated configuration is to drive fans 1-2 (tacho's 1-2) > > > *both* from pwm1. I could be wrong about that though. > > > > > Your not. A real pending configuration looks like: > > > > Fan A1----\ > > Fan A2----|---\ > > >-------PWM1 > > Fan B1----|---/ > > Fan B2----/ > > > > Fan C1----|------------PWM2 > > Fan C2----/ > > OK, I have to accept Mark's idea then. > > Would it make sense to accept both fanN_pwm and pwmN, and use the > approriate entries depending on the chip? It would also mean two > possible names for auto-fan contol files (it87 model), so there would be > three possible sets of names instead of two. This is not good, but OTOH, > using pwmN for SMSC-like chips will probably make the user wonder why > fan1 will stop monitoring when pwm1 is set to 0% duty cycle... > > So I guess we better simply revert to pwmN as Mark suggested. OK. :) I'll do the patches in a few days, since I brought it up. Regards, -- Mark M. Hoffman mhoffman at lightlink.com
