On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Jean Delvare wrote: > Can you please develop on this? Which drivers were broken? What > functionality was taken away? The LM85 driver was hosed by it (well, it probably was broken before, but one could fix the mess from userspace before the interface change). AMD1027 *requires* proper setup to work in autofan mode, it *must* be put into pwm-aware tachometer mode, or it screws up completely: all fan readings go berserk, and the fan keeps changing speeds widly, which makes an awful ammount of noise. ADT7463 is likely to work the same way. EMC6D100 fortunately only has the pwm-aware mode, so you can't break it. EMC6D102 is an unknown, and so is LM85B/C. Granted, some BIOSes do the proper ADM1027 setup, so that reduces the number of people hit by the issue (the driver is very careful and does not mess with what it doesn't have any reason to), and thus will preserve the tachometer mode). Unfortunately (or fortunately, or I'd never have noticed it) the Intel D875PBZ Desktop board BIOS doesn't. I have this fixed already, but I don't like the current interface I added to LM85 to do it completely (i.e. add the missing acuostics enhancement control that was removed when the chip-specific interfaces were deleted), so I did not send in patches yet. > There is. Read Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface, it's all there, in > the PWM section, since 2.6.10-rc1. That thing is incomplete in the sense that it does not cover everything the drivers used to be capable of (it certainly lacks acoustics enhancement control that LM85 used to have), and does not match userspace reality. Unless Debian unstable is shipping borked userspace, that is. > This interface was discussed a long time ago on this list, it even made > some noise if I recall properly. Well, I wasn't around then, or I'd have raised the need for an acoustics enhancement interface. > BTW, it's really great that you are proposing to help us. Our project > really needs good souls willing to spend their time reviewing and > integrating code, analyzing and fixing bugs, and supporting users, for > free. As you may have noticed, there is more work that the volunteers > can currently deal with. More manpower is always welcome. Hmm. Ok. So, exactly HOW am I supposed to address missing interfaces? Just write the code including a patch to the docs and be done with it? > As said above, the interface already exists. No need to draft anything as > far as I can see. If the interface doesn't fit your needs, please > explain why. It has no way to deal with acoustincs enhancements. It is all in the email that was ignored, Message-ID: <20050911211327.GA23393 at khazad-dum.debian.net> and in a small correction I did on Message-ID: <20050916153433.GA28335 at khazad-dum.debian.net> > That's fine with me. Not everything fits in the standard. The additional > sysfs names must simply not interfere with the current or future > standard names. Please let us have a namespace *reserved* for that, then. It is the sane thing to do. How about chipspecific_* ? If you're OK with it, I will send the patch for the docs. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
