Hi Jean, > Hi Juerg, > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:54:20 -0700, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > > > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:57:32 +0200, Juergen Bausa wrote: > > > > dme1737-i2c-0-2e > > > > Adapter: SMBus nForce2 adapter at 4c00 > > > > V5stby: +0.00 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +6.64 V) ALARM > > > > Vccp: +1.10 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +2.99 V) > > > > V3.3: +3.28 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +4.38 V) > > > > V5: +4.94 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +6.64 V) > > > > V12: +11.80 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +15.94 V) > > > > V3.3stby: +3.29 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +4.38 V) > > > > Vbat: +2.98 V (min = +0.00 V, max = +4.38 V) > > > > Int Temp: +34?C (low = -127?C, high = +127?C) > > > > CPU Temp: +29?C (low = -127?C, high = +127?C) > > > > CPU_Fan: 0 RPM (min = 0 RPM) > > > > ERROR: Can't get fan3 data! > > > > ERROR: Can't get fan5 data! > > > > ERROR: Can't get fan6 data! > > > > CPU_PWM: 0 (enable = 1, freq = 25000 Hz) > > > > ERROR: Can't get pwm5 data! > > > > ERROR: Can't get pwm6 data! > > > > cpu0_vid: +1.550 V (VRM Version 2.4) > > > > > > Juerg, sensors shouldn't be displaying these errors for optional fans > > > and pwms. Can you please provide a patch fixing this? It should be > > > pretty easy. > > > > Hmm... An ignore statement would take care of this. Do you have > > something else in mind? > > No, users shouldn't have to add ignore statements to hide these errors, > the errors shouldn't be displayed in the first place. And as reported > by Juergen, adding ignore statements doesn't even work in the case of > the dme1737. > > We must rework the checks in the dme1737 printing functions to process > the ignore statements properly, and to only display errors for missing > features, not missing channels. I'm attaching the patch I have come up > with. I can't test it as I do not have the hardware. Juergen, can you > please test and report? > > Juerg, can you please review and test too? Ok I'm officially confused now. Your patch only prevents error messages if ignore statements are added. Is that the intended behavior? ...juerg > Admittedly this libsensors interface is confusing, the good news is > that the future library handles the ignore statements all by itself so > all these problems are gone :) > > -- > Jean Delvare > >
