Why doesn't this fit the current temperature interface? What is there in the interface that says it has to be an absolute temperature and not a relative temperature? Alarms, min-max, hysterisis, etc all still work the same, they are just shifted so that the max limit is zero and the typical values are less than zero. We allow negative temperatures in the library. Phil P. -- Philip Pokorny, RHCE Chief Hardware Architect Penguin Computing http://www.penguincomputing.com -----Original Message----- From: Jean Delvare [mailto:khali at linux-fr.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 06:26 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Maxim Levitsky Cc: lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org Subject: Re: Why internal sensor on atom cpu isn't yet supported? On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:18:45 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 15:13 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:39:32 +0200, Rudolf Marek wrote: > > > Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > > I use an old patch, and it works fine, was it forgotten? > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Well I think there are more atoms with different TjMax and I became tired to ask > > > Intel again and again. > > > > What's the plan then, never ever support the Atom thermal sensors? > > Seems wrong, TjMax for Core/Core2 is not that clear either, but we > > still do support these. > > > > Lets just expose raw value, and let usespace (or user do the > calculation) > > Just expose the (30 degrees below maximum or so) This doesn't fit in our standard interface. If we want to do this (I'm not sure) we need to define a new interface first. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors at lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20090428/3c6c2fdd/attachment.html
