On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 10:51:32 -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:46:54AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Ira, > > > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:56:28 -0700, Ira W. Snyder wrote: > > > The adm1031 chip is capable of an 8 Hz update rate, configurable at runtime > > > with the fan filter register. Increase the update rate to get faster > > > temperature readings. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ira W. Snyder <iws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > This may be a bit controversial. The ADM1031 chip may use more power at a > > > higher update rate. In my (embedded) application, this doesn't matter. The > > > faster update rate is more important. > > > > If you use the automatic fan speed control capabilities, then indeed a > > faster update rate can be benefical. But as you suspected, it is > > somewhat controversial, due to the higher power consumption possibly > > for no good reason. Also, the BIOS/firmware might have already > > configured the chip and traditionally the hwmon drivers preserve these > > settings as much as possible. > > > > Yep, that makes perfect sense. > > > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? It is easy enough for me to carry > > > myself, but I'd much rather have it upstream. > > > > I wouldn't want it upstream as is. However I can think of two > > alternative implementations which I would be happy with: > > > > 1* Let the adm1031 driver accept platform data, and the update rate be > > part of that platform data. Then you can instantiate your device > > explicitly and pass the desired update rate. > > > > 2* Expose the update frequency through sysfs, and make it writable. > > After all, so many monitoring devices have a configurable update rate > > that it would make sense to have a standard attribute for it. If you go > > that route, we have to standardize on it first, and add it to > > Documentation/hwmon/sysfs-interface. Then implement it in the adm1031 > > driver and possibly other drivers. > > > > Note that both options aren't mutually exclusive, although one of them > > should be enough to satisfy your need. > > > > I like the idea of a sysfs node. Does "update_rate" (in milliseconds) > sound ok, or do you have another name you'd prefer? Sounds good, no objection. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
