Hi Grant, > Okay, what I have so far is fan_min set to zero, disable fan alarm, > no touch divider. Yes, looks like the best thing to do. > 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. Interesting. I was doing almost that in w83627ehf before (setting fan_min to 255 instead of 254, but still setting div to the max value). What you propose here indeed makes sense. I would then suggest that we do add a warning message as you proposed earlier (fan%u low limit %u below minimum, setting to %u instead). > 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? Yes, that's what I wanted. "fan_min set too high" isn't a special case IMHO. It is handled just fine by the regular code. As said earlier, if the user asks for something stupid, he/she gets what he/she deserves. We can't help. > 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... True, except that these are really two separate rules. "fan_min > 192" is the rule when setting fan low limit, "speed == 255 and div < max_div" is the rule when speed reading overflows. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare
