On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:00:00 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 03:17:59AM -0400, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Do you mean it is strange from a technical perspective, or do you have > > evidences that it doesn't work properly? This trick come from Intel > > themselves, I would guess they know their business. > > From a technical perspective. Hard to see what a PCI bridge ID has to do with Tjmax. I agree. If you search the archives, you'll see I emitted exactly the same complaint back then. > > (...) > > Higher or lower doesn't make a difference. As long as the coretemp > > driver doesn't properly report the temperature values as being > > relative, users don't expect the value to change depending on the > > kernel version or configuration options. We have had dozens of user > > reports because of this. > > > You are right, functionality would change if someone runs a kernel with PCI undefined > on the specific systems which do use the PCI bridge ID to determine Tjmax. So > if there are no other options, maybe the big fat warning in that case would make sense. > I would definitely prefer that over disabling coretemp entirely just because it _might_ > possibly report a wrong Tjmax (which it doees anyway for many CPUs). I fully agree. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
