On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:34:39PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > @@ -176,6 +179,16 @@ static int __devinit k8temp_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > "wrong - check erratum #141\n"); > > } > > > > + if (((model >= 0x68) && (model != 0xc1)) && > > + !(model == 0x68) && !(model == 0x6c) && > > + !(model == 0x7c)) > > This test is pretty confusing, with these extra parentheses and the mix > of (a != b) and !(a == b). What about the following instead? As far as > I can see, it leads to the same results, but is much more readable: > > if (model >= 0x69 && > !(model == 0xc1 || model == 0x6c || model == 0x7c)) > Well, right you are. When I wrote the check I had following in mind: Check for RevG: ((model >= 0x68) && (model != 0xc1)) // excluding ATHLON64 FX, "JH-F3" and after that exclude all mobile parts: !(model == 0x68) && !(model == 0x6c) && !(model == 0x7c)) Of course this can be simplified. > > + /* > > + * RevG desktop CPUs (i.e. no socket S1G1 parts) > > + * need additional offset, otherwise reported > > + * temperature is below ambient temperature > > + */ > > + data->temp_offset = 21000; > > If you apply the same offset to all sensors, you'll still obtain > something odd: > > k8temp-pci-00c3 > Adapter: PCI adapter > Core0 Temp: > +38?C > Core0 Temp: > +24?C > Core1 Temp: > +42?C > Core1 Temp: > +26?C > > That's not terribly realistic, is it? Unless both sensors for a given > core are very far apart - > but I suspect each core is pretty small, > isn't it? "Far" is relative, isn't it ;-) Guess this is from an idle system. Please bring load on both cores and look at the temperature differences again. Regards, Andreas
