Hi Simon, On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 17:59 -0400, Simon Guinot wrote: > Hi Guenter, > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:43:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > > > > The combination of DIV_ROUND_UP() and DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() causes inconsistency. > > > > > > > > Assume num_speed = 8, pwm is set to 128. > > > > > > > > set: 128 * (8 - 1) / 255 = 3.513 ==> 4 > > > > get: 4 * 255 / (8 - 1) = 145.7 ==> 146 > > > > set: 146 * (8 - 1) / 255 = 4.007 ==> 5 > > > > get: 5 * 255 / (8 - 1) = 182.142 ==> 182 > > > > set: 182 * (8 - 1) / 255 = 4.996 ==> 5 > > > > > > > > Unless there is a really good reason to use DIV_ROUND_UP(), you might > > > > want to use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() instead. > > > > > > This choice is coherent with the rpm interface one and the reason is the > > > same: start the fan even with a low value. In your example, 36 is first > > > speed threshold. > > > > > Yes, but here it causes an inconsistency between setting and reporting. > > I don't expect the speed to change if I set the same value that was read. > > Exactly this happens if one writes 146 in my example. That is much worse > > than a potential startup problem, or the observation that pwm values below X > > don't start the fan. > > Mmm. Convert a speed index into a low round pwm value (and not use > DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST() at all) fix the inconsistency too. If you agree, > I would prefer this option. Ok if it works. I am mostly concerned about inconsistencies. Not sure I understand what you mean with "low round pwm value", though. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
