Fenghua, On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:51:20 -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:27:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > I might spend some time rewriting the coretemp driver as described above, > > unless someone else picks it up, and unless there is opposition. > > Obviously, that won't include the package sensor since there is now > > a separate driver for it. > > I agree with this method too. On a multiple socket system, the current coretemp > output will cause confusion since it only outputs core# without package#. Good point. > If it's ok for you, I can rewrite this part to have hwmon device per CPU with > both core and package thermal info and send out RFC patch soon. Yes, please! If you have time to work on this, it would be very great. I am really curious to see how the driver would look like if we go with this approach. I can test the code, too (although I understand you won't have any difficulties getting your hands on recent Intel systems ;) Also see my reply in the other thread about the handling of removed siblings. I suspect it will be very easy to add to the new design. Side question: is it safe to assume a maximum of 2 siblings per core on Intel x86 CPUs? -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
