On 08:45 Mon 10 May, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:35:25 +0800, Huaxu Wan said:
> > -
> > - /* check if family 6, models 0xe (Pentium M DC),
> > - 0xf (Core 2 DC 65nm), 0x16 (Core 2 SC 65nm),
> > - 0x17 (Penryn 45nm), 0x1a (Nehalem), 0x1c (Atom),
> > - 0x1e (Lynnfield) */
> > - if ((c->cpuid_level < 0) || (c->x86 != 0x6) ||
> > - !((c->x86_model == 0xe) || (c->x86_model == 0xf) ||
> > - (c->x86_model == 0x16) || (c->x86_model == 0x17) ||
> > - (c->x86_model == 0x1a) || (c->x86_model == 0x1c) ||
> > - (c->x86_model == 0x1e))) {
>
> So we remove something that checks the CPU level for a model we *expect*
> to find a thermal sensor, and only throws a KERN_WARNING if we're on a
> model we don't know about...
>
> > + /* check if the CPU has thermal sensor */
> > + eax = cpuid_eax(0x06);
> > + if (!(eax & 0x01)) {
> > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(i);
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING DRVNAME ": CPU (model=0x%x)"
> > + " has no thermal sensor!\n", c->x86_model);
>
> And replace it with a totally unprotected check that's going to fire off
> a KERN_WARNING on every single CPU that Intel ever made that doesn't
> include a hardware thermal sensor - including all the family 0-5,
> and model < 0x0e hardware.
Oops! That's a bug. Thank you!
>
> KERN_WARNING is for "We expected to find the hardware but it's gone off
> for a walk on us". If you wanted to say "Hmm.. this CPU doesn't have one"
> you probably wanted KERN_DEBUG or *maybe* KERN_INFO.
I think the better one is KERN_INFO here.
--
Thanks
Huaxu
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
