Grant Coady wrote:
> Hi Khali,
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:35:31 +0200 (CEST), "Jean Delvare" <khali at linux-fr.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry for mixing the thread up. Just got a working set of computes
> for w83697hf chip using sensors.conf.
>
> Its the comments up the top of file wrong, down further they mention
> the 3.6 volt offset but unfortunately comment:
> "
> # The math is convoluted, so we hope that your motherboard
> # uses the recommended resistor values.
> "
> I'd have to agree with convoluted math :)
>
IIRC the comment, and these original formulas, are mine.
compute in5 (5.14 * @) - 14.91 , (@ + 14.91) / 5.14
compute in6 (3.14 * @) - 7.71 , (@ + 7.71) / 3.14
If I made a mistake doing the formulas on the back of a napkin,
or they aren't correct for newer
Winbond chips (is the 697f the chip you've been referring to when you say
"Winbond"? - there are lots of separate sections for Winbond chips in
sensors.conf.eg), then let's fix them in sensors.conf.eg.
Or you suggested rewriting the formulas to be more transparent -
that's a good idea.
But just because the formula's wrong doesn't mean we should shove
the calculations into the driver. Let's fix the formulas and be done.
I think that's where you are now anyway? not sure...
Do you now think the formula is wrong or just hard to understand?
mds
>
>>and motherboards have a long history of not following the
>>recommendations anyway.
>
>
> This is the issue what I'm trying to redress by exposing resistor
> values in the computes, and providing (planning?) a user-space
> program for those with non-standard values on their mobo's.
>
> I've changed Winbond datasheet values to E24 values as I suspect
> that is what's on my mobo. These work for me, CVS lm_sensors
> (so I did compile that other patch, later :)
>
> ignore in1
> compute in3 @ * (50 + 34) / 50, @ * 50 / (50 + 34)
> compute in4 @ * (56 + 20) / 20, @ * 20 / (56 + 20)
> compute in5 ((@ - 3.6) * 100 / 24) + @, 3.6 - ((3.6 - @) * 24 / (100 + 24))
> compute in6 ((@ - 3.6) * 120 / 56) + @, 3.6 - ((3.6 - @) * 56 / (120 + 56))
> compute in7 @ * (33 + 17) / 33, @ * 33 / (33 + 17)
>
> These can be simplified back, but then we lose traceability?
>
>>From a documentation point of view the verbose example may be
> better?
