On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 01:23:27PM -0400, R, Durgadoss wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> [snip..]
> > > It was just a suggestion from me that we can handle the interrupts from
> > > within therm_throt since there was code in there, doing this already.
> > > I did not know (in fact do not know..) how to catch these interrupts
> > > inside coretemp. That's why I thought of adding code in therm_throt.
> > >
> > > If it's not the right way to go, I am open to other ideas.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I am fine with the idea of having tempX_threshold[0-7]
> > > and their alarms. We can use the 'status' bits in the THERM_STATUS
> > > register to represent the alarm. The logic can be something like this:
> > >
> > > //Log bits indicate the input temperature reached the configured threshold;
> > > //but we do not know from which direction.
> > > if (msr_val & THERM_LOG_THRESHOLD0) {
> > > //if the status bit is one, the input temperature is higher than the
> > > //configured threshold. If it is zero, the input temperature is lower
> > > //than the configured threshold.
> > > bool alarm = msr_val & THERM_STATUS_THRESHOLD0;
> > > print: alarm
> > > //Let the user space take care of 0/1 from the *_alarm interfaces.
> > > }
> > >
> > So there is a clear notion of "exceed" associated with those thresholds ?
>
> Sorry Guenter. I don't get what you mean by this :-(
>
How about "It is known that the temperature is at or above the threshold" ?
> > I thought there was just an interrupt whenever the threshold is reached
> > from either side. Looks like I missed that one.
> >
> > Personally, I don't think "alarm" would be appropriate here, since we don't
> > know if the threshold is supposed to be a lower or an upper limit, and if
> > it reflects an alarm to start with. If we define a new set of attributes for
> > unspecified thresholds, I would prefer something like
> > "tempX_thresholdY_triggered".
> >
>
> For me, it looks like, we need not know whether the threshold is upper or lower.
> Anyway, for every threshold, we will get two interrupts (for either direction)
> So, the user space can assume either a lower threshold and look for 0 in the
> Corresponding alarm interface Or a higher threshold and look for 1 in the
> alarm interface. Will this not work ?
>
For a lower threshold, "alarm" implies "temperature is at or below threshold",
In other words, "alarm" can mean that a value is above or below a given threshold -
it has a semantics that depends on its context.
This context is not known in the case of a generic threshold. This is why I suggested
to use a more neutral term, such as "triggered", which would imply "at or above
threshold" (or possibly just "threshold triggered" if the direction is not known)
without attaching a semantics to it.
Thanks,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
