Hi Robert, On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Guenter Roeck schrieb: > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:53:28AM -0500, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > [ ... ] > >>> > >>> So first question is what chip he has. > >>> > >> ... answer is NCT6775F, from Robert's log. It uses the "old" registers for the min > >> speed settings, so presumably that should be correct. Yet, there must be a reason > >> for the alarm. Maybe it is the "maximum RPM" register after all - the NCT6775F > >> has that set of registers as well. > >> > > Doesn't look like the "maximum RPM" register is the culprit. I have a system with NCT6775F > > (not using its fan controls, though). Looks like one can not write into that register, so it > > must be a status register. Maybe it reports the maximum RPM the chip has seen. > > OK, so here's a bit of shortened output of my tests: > > > # echo 5000 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.656/fan2_min > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 0 RPM (min = 5037 RPM, div = 4) > [...] > > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1102 RPM (min = 5113 RPM, div = 8) ALARM > [...] > > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1095 RPM (min = 5113 RPM, div = 8) ALARM > [...] > > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1061 RPM (min = 5113 RPM, div = 8) ALARM > [...] > > # echo 0 > /sys/devices/platform/w83627ehf.656/fan2_min > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1054 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) > [...] > > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1095 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) > [...] > > # sensors > [...] > fan2: 1061 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 8) > [...] > > > So, in short, it looks like it's correct that this is a minimum, but it > might get triggered very early in the cycle or so and when re-setting > the alarm due to that re-writing of the minimum, everything is OK. > Looks like it. Thanks a lot for the testing! Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
