Hi Guenter, On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 01:38:30 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:52:04AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:17:24 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:05:01AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 07:52:44 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > I implemented a prototype last night. It adds about 130 lines of code, and changes about 20. > > > > > A few things like chip detection are still missing, so it will probably end up adding > > > > > maybe 150 lines of code. > > > > > > > > Seems reasonable. And maybe another pair of eyes who know the lm90 > > > > driver well will have suggestions to make it even smaller :) > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > Followup question: The chip supports three limits per sensor - ALERT, OT1, and OT2. > > > Default settings are along the line of 70, 90, and 120 degrees C. OT2 typically causes > > > a board shutdown. > > > > > > Current API only allows for two limits, so I am using ALERT for min/max, OT1 for crit, > > > and ignore OT2. Any idea if/how we could report OT2 as well ? > > > > I have no objection adding another limit to the sysfs-interface. I seem > > to recall that a few other thermal sensors would benefit from it. > > > > Could take the form of temp[1-*]_warn or temp[1-*]_crit2 (or any other > > suggestion you may have). The w83795 driver I'm currently working on > > temp[1-*]_crit2 would probably be a better fit. "warn" doesn't seem right > for a temperature causing a board reset. Of course it really depends on what each limit does. "warn" would probably be the lowest high limit, only warning the user / admin that some action will be taken later if the temperature keeps raising. Maybe temp[1-*]_emergency would be better than temp[1-*]_crit2? > > has temp5_warn and temp6_warn. The values are lower than the ones in > > temp5_max and temp6_max, respectively, so it seems different from your > > own case. I'll check the register descriptions. > > > > Note that our decision might change the pertinence of adding support > > for the MAX6696 to the lm90 driver. > > Code would not have to change much, though. All I have to add is some code to > read the additional registers, and add three more sysfs attributes for the _crit2 > temperatures. Since I already added several attributes for the third sensor, > this is not much additional change. OK, alright then. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
