On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:33:56AM -0700, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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? I think architecturally it's not safe to assume 2 siblings per core on x86 although so far HT implementations have been having 2 siblings per core. Linux kernel doesn't assume 2 siblings per core during initialization (please check arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c). This is right way to handle potential non 2 sibling case in the future. Thanks. -Fenghua _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
