Hi Ben, Sorry for the delay. On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:56:46 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > For RPM-controlled, look at the following entry instead: > > > > fan[1-*]_target > > Desired fan speed > > Unit: revolution/min (RPM) > > RW > > Only makes sense if the chip supports closed-loop fan speed > > control based on the measured fan speed. > > > > One significant difference is that, in this case, you always know which > > fan you control, while in the pwm[1-*] case you don't. > > Right. > > Now, maybe the best option is to have instead: > > fan[1-*]_discrete_value > Discrete value > RW > > fan[1-*]_supported values > List of supported discrete values > RO > > IE. I like the interface to be self-explanatory rather than relying on > the user to know in advance what to write there. In which case I could > either use 0,1,2 as values or even "off, slow, fast". I have no objection. > I can then make a custom fancontrol script (or add a wart to the > existing one) to deal with this HW. > > What do you think ? Please don't try to add this to the fancontrol script. It's messy enough as is ;) You probably want to implement the kernel part and the user-space part together before you propose a standard interface, otherwise it might be difficult to make the best decisions with regards to attribute names and values. > Another option of course is to do the whole thermal control in a kernel > thread :-) That wouldn't be very hard nor take a lot of code, but I'm > sure I'll encounter resistance trying to merge that :-) Me, I wouldn't object. That's what you did for other systems as far as I can see? As long as things work in the end, I have no problem with fan speed control being in the kernel. Having it in user-space has its share of issues (e.g. risk of overheating is the script dies for any reason.) But yes, others may complain. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
