Hi Khali, On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:17:13 +0200, Jean Delvare <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote: >> Something has to take a hit, and fan limit resolution is it, I've >> already dropped the chop point from 192 down to 128, then check >> if fan > 192 and do one adjustment in the set_fan_min. > >What exactly are you trying to achieve? 192 seemed to be a good >equilibrium between range margin and resolution. Exploring, it did nothing good for us, back up at 192 :) >> Rest of adjustment in measurement side, not bidirectional until we >> see a need? > >Absolutely. Note that this guarantees a "stable" divider, while >bidirectional could result in endless divider change, which I would like >to avoid, because divider change is somewhat expensive. Okay, what I have so far is fan_min set to zero, disable fan alarm, no touch divider. fan_min set too low, set to lowest value (div = 8, fan_min = 254), this indicates to the user the lowest limit value for adm9240: 664. Since their fan is (mine was) running alarm not asserted, alarm will be asserted if fan speed goes below min operating point --> correct operation. fan_min set too high? 50000 -> fan_min, displayed back as something like 42000 and alarm asserted :) Takes a few measurement cycles to recover fan speed display... that's what you wanted? Not quite right yet... The rules seem to be don't auto-adjust fan clock divider unless fan_min > 192, speed == 255 and div < max_div... Then my brain stopped :) And I just shut down the other machines. Cheers, Grant.
