On 02/18/2014 09:38 PM, ianp wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:21 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Theoretically yes, but I am quite sure that it is PBKC
(Problem Between Keyboard And Chair ;-).
I do know about PEBKAC, and it would be unfortunate if that were to be the case.
Also,
I am not using the fact, whether directly or indirectly stated, that
"both in3 and in4 happen to report the same physical value," because
they do not report the same physical value. Forgive me if I wasn't clear
with my words, because English is not my native language.
Actually, they do. Register values are 0xcf for both (bank 0,
registers 0x23 and 0x24).
For
the record, what I have been stating since the start is that,
apparently, I can scale the +5V and +12V monitors _only_ in in4. And
they are not out of pure luck, because apart from researching the
correct formula to use for the compute statements and a number of
trial-and-error runs, the +5V and +12V values that I scaled from my
formula just doesn't _happen_ to be correct -- they are corroborated as
the same values that hwmonitor "sees" in Windows. I cannot scale +5V nor
+12V from all the other inputs the kernel module provides, only in in4.
Not sure if I I can follow that logic; see below.
Try sensors -u for raw values. That should help us determine
the correct compute statements.
As far as I can see from the driver, in3 has an automatic
built-in scaling factor of 2 for this chip, meaning it already
reports twice the voltage you would expect for other inputs,
and thus should not need scaling in the first place.
In other words, sensors -u should already report
the correct value for in3.
Guenter
I will defer to your understanding, because you know the code much better than I could hopefully ever understand.
For
the sake of simplicity, I have disabled my custom configuration and
deferred to the default values provided by lm-sensors, and here are the
results:
$ sensors
w83627dhg-isa-0290
Adapter: ISA adapter
Vcore: +1.11 V (min = +1.07 V, max = +1.18 V)
in1: +0.98 V (min = +0.91 V, max = +1.44 V)
AVCC: +3.30 V (min = +2.98 V, max = +3.63 V)
+3.3V: +3.30 V (min = +2.98 V, max = +3.63 V)
in4: +1.66 V (min = +1.63 V, max = +1.80 V)
in5: +1.69 V (min = +0.09 V, max = +0.34 V) ALARM
in6: +1.90 V (min = +1.80 V, max = +1.90 V)
3VSB: +3.50 V (min = +2.98 V, max = +3.63 V)
Vbat: +3.34 V (min = +2.70 V, max = +3.30 V) ALARM
fan1: 0 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 128)
fan2: 1854 RPM (min = 902 RPM, div = 8)
fan3: 0 RPM (min = 0 RPM, div = 128)
fan4: 0 RPM (min = 2109 RPM, div = 128) ALARM
fan5: 0 RPM (min = 811 RPM, div = 128) ALARM
temp1: +41.0°C (high = +60.0°C, hyst = +55.0°C) sensor = thermistor
temp2: +38.5°C (high = +60.0°C, hyst = +55.0°C) sensor = thermistor
temp3: +45.5°C (high = +80.0°C, hyst = +75.0°C) sensor = thermistor
cpu0_vid: +0.000 V
intrusion0: ALARM
$ sensors -u
w83627dhg-isa-0290
Adapter: ISA adapter
Vcore:
in0_input: 1.112
in0_min: 1.072
in0_max: 1.184
in0_alarm: 0.000
in1:
in1_input: 0.992
in1_min: 0.912
in1_max: 1.440
in1_alarm: 0.000
AVCC:
in2_input: 3.296
in2_min: 2.976
in2_max: 3.632
in2_alarm: 0.000
+3.3V:
in3_input: 3.296
in3_min: 2.976
in3_max: 3.632
in3_alarm: 0.000
If we assume that hwmonitor is correct, this needs
to scale up 50%, which would make the value
3.296 * 1.5 = 4.944V.
The raw value reported by the driver in the hwmonitor dump
is 0xcf = 207, which is multiplied by the driver with 16,
resulting in 3.312V as originally seen, or scaled to 4.968V,
which is exactly the value that was reported by hwmonitor.
So your compute statement would be something like
compute in3 @*(15/10), @/(15/10)
in4:
in4_input: 1.656
in4_min: 1.632
in4_max: 1.800
in4_alarm: 0.000
in5_input: 1.688
in5_min: 0.088
in5_max: 0.344
in5_alarm: 1.000
The raw value reported by the driver is 0xcf = 207.
This is multiplied by the driver with 8, resulting
in a reported voltage of 1.656V. A scaling factor
of 7 (as you have) gets you to 11.592V, which
matches the voltage reported by hwmonitor quite closely.
compute in4 @*7, @/7
might be a bit simpler, though.
Hope this helps,
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
