On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:49:47 -0700, Philip Pokorny <ppokorny at penguincomputing.com> wrote: >So a ripple counter is the equivalent to a fan divisor and therefore I >would recommend *not* to apply this patch to rename it. Keep the >original fan_div name. Jean Delvare tells me the thing is different, my request for a tester has gone unanswered thus far, if you have access to one of these chips the test is simple: if changing fan_ripple/fan_div doubles or halves the fan speed reading, then fan_ripple != fan_div. That easy! Until somebody provides the answer to that simple test I am assuming fan_ripple != fan_div. >If fscpos has a fan_ripple accessor, then *it* should be changed to >fan_div, not the other way round. Disagree, if you have access to these chips, please perform the test and let me know result, then we can say the datasheet is a poor translation. (pulses <=> ripples struck me as strange translation). The datasheet _is clear_ on defining ripples as 2, 4 or 8 per fan revolution, whereas datasheets for chips with 22.5kHz fan clock divided before -> gated counter _always_ spec the fan as two pulses per revolution. Having the same name for a fundamentally different function would not be useful. The current different names for the same function is plainly wrong. The available evidence to me points to a difference in function, requiring a name change. If you can perform the test confirming this issue then we know the correct name to use. (fanX_pulses_per_rev) --> user-space should have this too, to scale fan speed when they have other than two pulses per rev fans. Thanks, --Grant.
